MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2125805292 · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocu009

Evaluating the impact of an integrated computer-based decision support with person-centered analytics for the management of asthma in primary care: a randomized controlled trial

2015· article· en· W2125805292 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Robyn Tamblyn, Pierre Ernst, Nancy Winslade, Allen Huang, Roland Grad, Robert W. Platt, Sara Ahmed, Teresa Moraga, Tewodros Eguale

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueElectronic Health Records Systems
Établissements canadiensUniversity of OttawaJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth Canada
Mots-clésMedicineAsthmaRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Emergency departmentPhysical therapyCluster randomised controlled trialRespiratory therapistDecision support systemEmergency medicineInternal medicineIntensive care medicineNursingData mining

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Computer-based decision support has been effective in providing alerts for preventive care. Our objective was to determine whether a personalized asthma management computer-based decision support increases the quality of asthma management and reduces the rate of out-of-control episodes. METHODS: A cluster-randomized trial was conducted in Quebec, Canada among 81 primary care physicians and 4447 of their asthmatic patients. Patients were followed from the first visit for 3-33 months. The physician control group used the Medical Office of the 21st century (MOXXI) system, an integrated electronic health record. A custom-developed asthma decision support system was integrated within MOXXI and was activated for physicians in the intervention group. RESULTS: At the first visit, 9.8% (intervention) to 12.9% (control) of patients had out-of-control asthma, which was defined as a patient having had an emergency room visit or hospitalization for respiratory-related problems and/or more than 250 doses of fast-acting β-agonist (FABA) dispensed in the past 3 months. By the end of the trial, there was a significant increase in the ratio of doses of inhaled corticosteroid use to fast-acting β-agonist (0.93 vs. 0.69: difference: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.02-0.51; P = 0.03) in the intervention group. The overall out-of-control asthma rate was 54.7 (control) and 46.2 (intervention) per 100 patients per year (100 PY), a non-significant rate difference of -8.7 (95% CI: -24.7, 7.3; P = 0.29). The intervention's effect was greater for patients with out-of-control asthma at the beginning of the study, a group who accounted for 44.7% of the 5597 out-of-control asthma events during follow-up, as there was a reduction in the event rate of -28.4 per 100 PY (95% CI: -55.6, -1.2; P = 0.04) compared to patients with in-control asthma at the beginning of the study (-0.08 [95% CI: -10.3, 8.6; P = 0.86]). DISCUSSION: This study evaluated the effectiveness of a novel computer-assisted ADS system that facilitates systematic monitoring of asthma control status, follow-up of patients with out of control asthma, and evidence-based, patient-specific treatment recommendations. We found that physicians were more likely to use ADS for out-of-control patients, that in the majority of these patients, they were advised to add an inhaled corticosteroid or a leukotriene inhibitor to the patient s treatment regimen, and the intervention significantly increased the mean ratio of inhaled corticosteroids to FABA during follow-up. It also reduced the rate of out-of-control episodes during follow up among patients whose asthma was out-of-control at the time of study entry. Future research should assess whether coupling patient-specific treatment recommendations, automated follow-up, and home care with comparative feedback on quality and outcomes of care can improve guideline adoption and care outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A primary care-personalized asthma management system reduced the rate of out-of-control asthma episodes among patients whose asthma was poorly controlled at the study's onset.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,034
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,477
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0340,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,074
Tête enseignante GPT0,456
Écart entre enseignants0,382 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations32
Publié2015
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the American Medical Informatics AssociationMême sujetElectronic Health Records SystemsTravaux en français237 207