CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 184Health Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionPrimary Care and Health OutcomesClinical practice guidelines implementation

Cluster randomised controlled trial to compare three methods of promoting secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care

Open access
Moher, Michael, Yudkin, Patricia, Wright, Lucy, Turner, Rebecca, Fuller, Alice, Schofield, Theo, Mant, David·2001·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.322.7298.1338PMC PMC32168
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Objective: To assess the effectiveness of three different methods of promoting secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care. Design: Pragmatic, unblinded, cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: Warwickshire. Subjects: 21 general practices received intervention; outcome measured in 1906 patients aged 55-75 years with established coronary heart disease. Interventions: Audit of notes with summary feedback to primary health care team (audit group); assistance with setting up a disease register and systematic recall of patients to general practitioner (GP recall group); assistance with setting up a disease register and systematic recall of patients to a nurse led clinic (nurse recall group). Main outcome measures: At 18 months' follow up: adequate assessment (defined) of 3 risk factors (blood pressure, cholesterol, and smoking status); prescribing of hypotensive agents, lipid lowering drugs, and antiplatelet drugs; blood pressure, serum cholesterol level, and plasma cotinine levels. Results: Adequate assessment of all 3 risk factors was much more common in the nurse and GP recall groups (85%, 76%) than the audit group (52%). The advantage in the nurse recall compared with the audit group was 33% (95% confidence interval 19% to 46%); in the GP recall group compared with the audit group 23% (10% to 36%), and in the nurse recall group compared with the GP recall group 9% (−3% to 22%). However, these differences in assessment were not reflected in clinical outcomes. Mean blood pressure (148/80, 147/81, 148/81 mm Hg), total cholesterol (5.4, 5.5, 5.5 mmol/l), and cotinine levels (% probable smokers 17%, 16%, 19%) varied little between the nurse recall, GP recall, and audit groups respectively, as did prescribing of hypotensive and lipid lowering agents. Prescribing of antiplatelet drugs was higher in the nurse recall group (85%) than the GP recall or audit groups (80%, 74%). After adjustment for baseline levels, the advantage in the nurse recall group compared with the audit group was 10% (3% to 17%), in the nurse recall group compared with the GP recall group 8% (1% to 15%) and in the GP recall group compared with the audit group 2% (−6% to 10%). Conclusions: Setting up a register and recall system improved patient assessment at 18 months' follow up but was not consistently better than audit alone in improving treatment or risk factor levels. Understanding the reasons for this is the key next step in improving the quality of care of patients with coronary heart disease. What is already known on this topic Effective preventive care of patients with any chronic disease requires planned and quality assured follow up on the basis of an up to date register Strategies for changing clinical practice in primary care have been of limited effectiveness What this study adds Setting up a coronary heart disease register for a practice substantially increases follow up and adequate assessment of patients at risk Improved assessment and follow up does not necessarily improve clinical outcome Follow up by nurses is as effective as, and may be more effective than, follow up by doctors Patients are being followed up and adequately assessed without the recommended preventive drugs being prescribed

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.322.7298.1338

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Moher M. Evidence of effectiveness of interventions for the secondary prevention and treatment of coronary heart disease in primary care-a review of the litera- ture. Oxford: NHS Executive, Anglia and Oxford Regional Health Authority, 1995.
  2. Omar RZ, Thompson SG. Analysis of a cluster randomised trial with binary outcome data using a multilevel model. Stat Med 2000;19:2675-88.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Moher, M., Yudkin, P., Wright, L., Turner, R., Fuller, A., Schofield, T., & Mant, D.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Moher, Michael
ORCID
Turner, Rebecca
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2001-06-02
Volume
322
Issue
7298
Pages
1338
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
DOI
10.1136/bmj.322.7298.1338
PMC
PMC32168
OpenAlex
W2134144126
Cited by
184
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 11
FWCI
14.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
secondary prevention, coronary artery disease, primary care, nurse-led clinics, disease registries, audit and feedback, risk factor assessment, blood pressure, serum cholesterol, smoking, antiplatelet agents, lipid-lowering drugs, drug prescribing, hypercholesterolemia, smoking cessation, quality improvement
MeSH terms
Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Hypolipidemic Agents, Blood Pressure, Cholesterol, Continuity of Patient Care, Coronary Disease, Drug Utilization, Family Practice, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Medical Audit, Middle Aged, Nurse Practitioners, Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors, Primary Health Care, Registries, Smoking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review