Dataset Information

Long term effectiveness on prescribing of two multifaceted educational interventions: results of two large scale randomized cluster trials.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Information on benefits and risks of drugs is a key element affecting doctors' prescribing decisions. Outreach visits promoting independent information have proved moderately effective in changing prescribing behaviours. OBJECTIVES: Testing the short and long-term effectiveness on general practitioners' prescribing of small groups meetings led by pharmacists. METHODS: Two cluster open randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were carried out in a large scale NHS setting. Ad hoc prepared evidence based material were used considering a therapeutic area approach--TEA, with information materials on osteoporosis or prostatic hyperplasia--and a single drug oriented approach--SIDRO, with information materials on me-too drugs of 2 different classes: barnidipine or prulifloxacin. In each study, all 115 Primary Care Groups in a Northern Italy area (2.2 million inhabitants, 1737 general practitioners) were randomised to educational small groups meetings, in which available evidence was provided together with drug utilization data and clinical scenarios. Main outcomes were changes in the six-months prescription of targeted drugs. Longer term results (24 and 48 months) were also evaluated. RESULTS: In the TEA trial, one of the four primary outcomes showed a reduction (prescription of alfuzosin compared to tamsulosin and terazosin in benign prostatic hyperplasia: prescribing ratio -8.5%, p?=?0.03). Another primary outcome (prescription of risedronate) showed a reduction at 24 and 48 months (-7.6%, p?=?0.02; and -9,8%, p?=?0.03), but not at six months (-5.1%, p?=?0.36). In the SIDRO trial both primary outcomes showed a statistically significant reduction (prescription of barnidipine -9.8%, p?=?0.02; prescription of prulifloxacin -11.1%, p?=?0.04), which persisted or increased over time. INTERPRETATION: These two cluster RCTs showed the large scale feasibility of a complex educational program in a NHS setting, and its potentially relevant long-term impact on prescribing habits, in particular when focusing on a single drug. National Health systems should invest in independent drug information programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN05866587.

SUBMITTER: Magrini N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4201458 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Long term effectiveness on prescribing of two multifaceted educational interventions: results of two large scale randomized cluster trials.

Magrini Nicola N Formoso Giulio G Capelli Oreste O Maestri Emilio E Nonino Francesco F Paltrinieri Barbara B Del Giovane Cinzia C Voci Claudio C Magnano Lucia L Daya Lisa L Marata Anna Maria AM

PloS one 20141017 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Information on benefits and risks of drugs is a key element affecting doctors' prescribing decisions. Outreach visits promoting independent information have proved moderately effective in changing prescribing behaviours.<h4>Objectives</h4>Testing the short and long-term effectiveness on general practitioners' prescribing of small groups meetings led by pharmacists.<h4>Methods</h4>Two cluster open randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were carried out in a large scale NHS setti ...[more]

PMID: 25329386

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Centers for Disease Control (2018) estimates that 1 in 59 children has autism spectrum disorder, and the annual cost of ASD in the U.S. is estimated to be $236 billion. Evidence-based interventions have been developed and demonstrate effectiveness in improving child outcomes. However, research on generalizable methods to scale up these practices in the multiple service systems caring for these children has been limited and is critical to meet this growing public health need. This project includes two, coordinated studies testing the effectiveness of the Translating Evidence-based Interventions (EBI) for ASD: Multi-Level Implementation Strategy (TEAMS) model. TEAMS focuses on improving implementation leadership, organizational climate, and provider attitudes and motivation in order to improve two key implementation outcomes-provider training completion and intervention fidelity and subsequent child outcomes. The TEAMS Leadership Institute applies implementation leadership strategies and TEAMS Individualized Provider Strategies for training applies motivational interviewing strategies to facilitate provider and organizational behavior change.MethodsA cluster randomized implementation/effectiveness Hybrid, type 3, trial with a dismantling design will be used to understand the effectiveness of TEAMS and the mechanisms of change across settings and participants. Study #1 will test the TEAMS model with AIM HI (An Individualized Mental Health Intervention for ASD) in publicly funded mental health services. Study #2 will test TEAMS with CPRT (Classroom Pivotal Response Teaching) in education settings. Thirty-seven mental health programs and 37 school districts will be randomized, stratified by county and study, to one of four groups (Standard Provider Training Only, Standard Provider Training + Leader Training, Enhanced Provider Training, Enhanced Provider Training + Leader Training) to test the effectiveness of combining standard, EBI-specific training with the two TEAMS modules individually and together on multiple implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes including provider training completion, fidelity (coded by observers blind to group assignment) and child behavior change will be examined for 295 mental health providers, 295 teachers, and 590 children.DiscussionThis implementation intervention has the potential to increase quality of care for ASD in publicly funded settings by improving effectiveness of intervention implementation. The process and modules will be generalizable to multiple service systems, providers, and interventions, providing broad impact in community services.Trial registrationThis study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03380078 ). Registered 20 December 2017, retrospectively registered.

Project description:ObjectiveTo review the literature on educational interventions to improve prescribing and identify educational methods that improve prescribing competency in both medical and non-medical prescribers.DesignA systematic review was conducted. The databases Medline, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for articles in English published between January 1990 and July 2013.SettingPrimary and secondary care.ParticipantsMedical and non-medical prescribers.InterventionEducation-based interventions to aid improvement in prescribing competency.Primary outcomeImprovements in prescribing competency (knows how) or performance (shows how) as defined by Miller's competency model. This was primarily demonstrated through prescribing examinations, changes in prescribing habits or adherence to guidelines.ResultsA total of 47 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Studies were categorised by their method of assessment, with 20 studies assessing prescribing competence and 27 assessing prescribing performance. A wide variety of educational interventions were employed, with different outcome measures and methods of assessments. In particular, six studies demonstrated that specific prescribing training using the WHO Guide to Good Prescribing increased prescribing competency in a wide variety of settings. Continuing medical education in the form of academic detailing and personalised prescriber feedback also yielded positive results. Only four studies evaluated educational interventions targeted at non-medical prescribers, highlighting that further research is needed in this area.ConclusionsA broad range of educational interventions have been conducted to improve prescribing competency. The WHO Guide to Good Prescribing has the largest body of evidence to support its use and is a promising model for the design of targeted prescribing courses. There is a need for further development and evaluation of educational methods for non-medical prescribers.

Project description:The registration of clinical trials has been promoted to prevent publication bias and increase research transparency. Despite general agreement about the minimum amount of information needed for trial registration, we lack clear guidance on descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions in trial registries. We aimed to evaluate the quality of registry descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education.On 6 May 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the 10 trial registries accessible through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included trials evaluating an educational intervention (that is, designed to teach or train patients about their own health) and dedicated to participants, their family members or home caregivers. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data related to the description of the experimental intervention, the centers, and the caregivers.We selected 268 of 642 potentially eligible studies and appraised a random sample of 150 records. All selected trials were registered in 4 registers, mainly ClinicalTrials.gov (61%). The median [interquartile range] target sample size was 205 [100 to 400] patients. The comparator was mainly usual care (47%) or active treatment (47%). A minority of records (17%, 95% CI 11 to 23%) reported an overall adequate description of the intervention (that is, description that reported the content, mode of delivery, number, frequency, duration of sessions and overall duration of the intervention). Further, for most reports (59%), important information about the content of the intervention was missing. The description of the mode of delivery of the intervention was reported for 52% of studies, the number of sessions for 74%, the frequency of sessions for 58%, the duration of each session for 45% and the overall duration for 63%. Information about the caregivers was missing for 70% of trials. Most trials (73%) took place in the United States or United Kingdom, 64% involved only one centre, and participating centers were mainly tertiary-care, academic or university hospitals (51%).Educational interventions assessed in ongoing RCTs of educational interventions are poorly described in trial registries. The lack of adequate description raises doubts about the ability of trial registration to help patients and researchers know about the treatment evaluated in trials of education.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Educational outreach visits are meant to improve the practice of health professionals by promoting face-to-face visits to deliver educational contents. They have been shown to change prescription behavior, but long-term effects are still uncertain. This trial aimed to determine if they improve family physician prescribing compared with passive guideline dissemination. METHODS:Parallel, open, superiority, and cluster-randomized trial. National Health Service primary care practices (clusters) were recruited in the Lisbon region-Portugal between March 2013 and January 2014. They could enter if they had at least four family physicians willing to participate and not planning to retire in the follow-up period. Three national guidelines were chosen for dissemination: acid secretion modifiers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antiplatelets. Physicians in the intervention group received one 15 to 20 min educational outreach visit at their workplace for each guideline. Physicians in the control group had access to guidelines through the Directorate-General for Health's website (passive dissemination). Primary outcomes were the proportion of COX-2 inhibitors prescribed within the NSAID class and the proportion of omeprazole within the PPI class at 18 months after the intervention. A cost-benefit analysis was performed. Practices were randomized by minimization. Data analyses were done at individual physician level using generalized mixed-effects regression models. Participants could not be blinded. RESULTS:Thirty-eight practices with 239 physicians were randomized (120 to intervention and 119 to control). Of 360 planned visits, 322 were delivered. No differences were found between physicians in the intervention and control groups regarding the proportion of omeprazole prescribed among PPIs 18 months after the visit (46.28 vs 47.15%, p?=?0.971) or the proportion of COX-2 inhibitors among NSAIDs (12.07 vs 13.08%, p?=?0.085). All secondary outcome comparisons showed no effect. There was no difference in cumulative drug costs at 18 months (3223.50€/1000 patients in the intervention group and 3143.92€/1000 patients in the control group, p?=?0.848). CONCLUSIONS:Educational outreach visits were unsuccessful in improving compliance with guideline recommendations among Portuguese family physicians. No effects were observed at 1, 6, and 18 months after the intervention, and there were no associated cost savings. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01984034 . Registered 7 November 2013.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study sought to assess the effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) of a multifaceted intervention aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in primary care.DesignLarge-sized, two-arm, open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial.SettingAll primary care physicians working for the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) in Galicia (region in north-west Spain).ParticipantsThe seven spatial clusters were distributed by unequal randomisation (3:4) of the intervention and control groups. A total of 1217 physicians (1.30 million patients) were recruited from intervention clusters and 1393 physicians (1.46 million patients) from control clusters.InterventionsOne-hour educational outreach visits tailored to training needs identified in a previous study; an online course integrated in practice accreditation; and a clinical decision support system.Main outcome measuresChanges in the ESAC (European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption) quality indicators for outpatient antibiotic use. We used generalised linear mixed and conducted a ROI analysis to ascertain the overall cost savings.ResultsMedian follow-up was 19 months. The adjusted effect on overall antibiotic prescribing attributable to the intervention was - 4.2% (95% CI: - 5.3% to - 3.2%), with this being more pronounced for penicillins - 6.5 (95% CI: - 7.9% to - 5.2%) and for the ratio of consumption of broad- to narrow-spectrum penicillins, cephalosporins, and macrolides - 9.0% (95% CI: - 14.0 to - 4.1%). The cost of the intervention was €87 per physician. Direct savings per physician attributable to the reduction in antibiotic prescriptions was €311 for the NHS and €573 for patient contributions, with an ROI of €2.57 and €5.59 respectively.ConclusionsInterventions designed on the basis of gaps in physicians' knowledge of and attitudes to misprescription can improve antibiotic prescribing and yield important direct cost savings.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN24158380 . Registered 5 February 2009.

Project description:Background/aimsWhen the randomized clusters in a cluster randomized trial are selected based on characteristics that influence treatment effectiveness, results from the trial may not be directly applicable to the target population. We used data from two large nursing home-based pragmatic cluster randomized trials to compare nursing home and resident characteristics in randomized facilities to eligible non-randomized and ineligible facilities.MethodsWe linked data from the high-dose influenza vaccine trial and the Music & Memory Pragmatic TRIal for Nursing Home Residents with ALzheimer's Disease (METRICaL) to nursing home assessments and Medicare fee-for-service claims. The target population for the high-dose trial comprised Medicare-certified nursing homes; the target population for the METRICaL trial comprised nursing homes in one of four US-based nursing home chains. We used standardized mean differences to compare facility and individual characteristics across the three groups and logistic regression to model the probability of nursing home trial participation.ResultsIn the high-dose trial, 4476 (29%) of the 15,502 nursing homes in the target population were eligible for the trial, of which 818 (18%) were randomized. Of the 1,361,122 residents, 91,179 (6.7%) were residents of randomized facilities, 463,703 (34.0%) of eligible non-randomized facilities, and 806,205 (59.3%) of ineligible facilities. In the METRICaL trial, 160 (59%) of the 270 nursing homes in the target population were eligible for the trial, of which 80 (50%) were randomized. Of the 20,262 residents, 973 (34.4%) were residents of randomized facilities, 7431 (36.7%) of eligible non-randomized facilities, and 5858 (28.9%) of ineligible facilities. In the high-dose trial, randomized facilities differed from eligible non-randomized and ineligible facilities by the number of beds (132.5 vs 145.9 and 91.9, respectively), for-profit status (91.8% vs 66.8% and 68.8%), belonging to a nursing home chain (85.8% vs 49.9% and 54.7%), and presence of a special care unit (19.8% vs 25.9% and 14.4%). In the METRICaL trial randomized facilities differed from eligible non-randomized and ineligible facilities by the number of beds (103.7 vs 110.5 and 67.0), resource-poor status (4.6% vs 10.0% and 18.8%), and presence of a special care unit (26.3% vs 33.8% and 10.9%). In both trials, the characteristics of residents in randomized facilities were similar across the three groups.ConclusionIn both trials, facility-level characteristics of randomized nursing homes differed considerably from those of eligible non-randomized and ineligible facilities, while there was little difference in resident-level characteristics across the three groups. Investigators should assess the characteristics of clusters that participate in cluster randomized trials, not just the individuals within the clusters, when examining the applicability of trial results beyond participating clusters.

Project description:The Portuguese National Health Directorate has issued clinical practice guidelines on prescription of anti-inflammatory drugs, acid suppressive therapy, and antiplatelets. However, their effectiveness in changing actual practice is unknown.The study will compare the effectiveness of educational outreach visits regarding the improvement of compliance with clinical guidelines in primary care against usual dissemination strategies. A cost-benefit analysis will also be conducted. We will carry out a parallel, open, superiority, randomized trial directed to primary care physicians. Physicians will be recruited and allocated at a cluster-level (primary care unit) by minimization. Data will be analyzed at the physician level. Primary care units will be eligible if they use electronic prescribing and have at least four physicians willing to participate. Physicians in intervention units will be offered individual educational outreach visits (one for each guideline) at their workplace during a six-month period. Physicians in the control group will be offered a single unrelated group training session. Primary outcomes will be the proportion of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors prescribed in the anti-inflammatory class, and the proportion of omeprazole in the proton pump inhibitors class at 18 months post-intervention. Prescription data will be collected from the regional pharmacy claims database. We estimated a sample size of 110 physicians in each group, corresponding to 19 clusters with a mean size of 6 physicians. Outcome collection and data analysis will be blinded to allocation, but due to the nature of the intervention, physicians and detailers cannot be blinded.This trial will attempt to address unresolved issues in the literature, namely, long term persistence of effect, the importance of sequential visits in an outreach program, and cost issues. If successful, this trial may be the cornerstone for deploying large scale educational outreach programs within the Portuguese National Health Service.ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01984034.

Dataset Information

Long term effectiveness on prescribing of two multifaceted educational interventions: results of two large scale randomized cluster trials.

Publications

Long term effectiveness on prescribing of two multifaceted educational interventions: results of two large scale randomized cluster trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets