Improved cardiovascular prevention using best CME practices: A randomized trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It was hypothesized that after a continuing medical education (CME) event, practice enablers and reinforcers addressing main clinical barriers to preventive care would be more effective in improving general practitioners' (GPs) adherence to cardiovascular guidelines than a CME event only. METHODS: A cluster-randomized trial was conducted on a convenience sample of 122 GPs who were randomly assigned to either CME only (control group) or CME with practice enablers and reinforcers (PER group). In the PER group, nurses visited GPs' offices once a month to implement the clinical intervention on patients > or = 55 years old with a scheduled visit in the month following the nurse visit: (1) screening medical records for potentially undermanaged high-risk patients; (2) prompting physicians to reassess preventive care in these patients; (3) enclosing a checklist reporting most recent information relevant to guidelines' implementation; and (4) enclosing a summary of experts' recommendations in the form of a follow-up and treatment algorithm. RESULTS: A retrospective chart audit of 2344 consenting patients, potentially undermanaged at baseline, demonstrated that the PER intervention following CME significantly improved adherence to guidelines compared to CME alone (OR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.32-2.41). DISCUSSION: The intervention was designed for self-implementation in primary care practices that have their own nursing staff. PER GPs were highly satisfied with the intervention; the majority said that they would implement it in their practice if someone trained their nurse, thus suggesting support for development of a multiprofessional CME program to disseminate this clinical approach to primary care practice groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it