Cited by 26Health Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementationPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Improving prescribing of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs: a method for identifying and addressing barriers to change

Open access
Fretheim, Atle, Oxman, Andrew D, Flottorp, Signe·2004·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

Background: We describe a simple approach we used to identify barriers and tailor an intervention to improve pharmacological management of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia. We also report the results of a post hoc exercise and survey we carried out to evaluate our approach for identifying barriers and tailoring interventions. Methods: We used structured reflection, searched for other relevant trials, surveyed general practitioners and talked with physicians during pilot testing of the intervention. The post hoc exercise was carried out as focus groups of international researchers in the field of quality improvement in health care. The post hoc survey was done by telephone interviews with physicians allocated to the experimental group of a randomised trial of our multifaceted intervention. Results: A wide range of barriers was identified and several interventions were suggested through structured reflection. The survey led to some adjustments. Studying other trials and pilot testing did not lead to changes in the design of the intervention. Neither the post hoc focus groups nor the post hoc survey revealed important barriers or interventions that we had not considered or included in our tailored intervention. Conclusions: A simple approach to identifying barriers to change appears to have been adequate and efficient. However, we do not know for certain what we would have gained by using more comprehensive methods and we do not know whether the resulting intervention would have been more effective if we had used other methods. The effectiveness of our multifaceted intervention is under evaluation in a randomised controlled trial.

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 · 10.1186/1472-6963-4-23

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Among the papers that covered barrier identification, the methods used included observations, interviews and/or focus groups, surveys, literature reviews, structured reflection by researchers, job analysis and expert consensus, and predictive studies to identify factors influencing behaviour.

    “In the papers where barrier identification was covered, the methods included observations, interviews and/or focus groups [14, 18, 30–32], surveys [32], literature reviews [24], structured reflection by the researchers [32], job analysis and expert consensus [18], and undertaking a predictive study to identify factors influencing the behaviour [28].”

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fretheim A Havelsrud K Flottorp S Oxman AD Påvirker takster og refusjonsregler praksis? [Do fees for service and regulations for reimbursement influence practice?] Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2003 795 796 12693118

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fretheim, A., Oxman, A. D., & Flottorp, S.
Corresponding author
Fretheim, Atle
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2004-09-03
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
23-23
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1491348571
Cited by
26
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
barriers to change, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, antihypertensive drugs, cholesterol-lowering drugs, drug prescribing, structured reflection, multicomponent intervention, quality improvement, general practitioners, physician survey
MeSH terms
Anticholesteremic Agents, Antihypertensive Agents, Benzothiadiazines, Diuretics, Drug Utilization, Education, Medical, Continuing, Family Practice, Humans, Hypercholesterolemia, Hypertension, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Primary Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment, Guideline Adherence, Sodium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors

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