MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156121728 · doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0720-3

Successful knowledge translation intervention in long-term care: final results from the vitamin D and osteoporosis study (ViDOS) pilot cluster randomized controlled trial

2015· article· en· W2156121728 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Courtney Kennedy, George Ioannidis, Lehana Thabane, Jonathan D. Adachi, Sharon Marr, Lora Giangregorio, Suzanne N. Morin, Richard G. Crilly, Robert G. Josse, Lynne Lohfeld, Laura Pickard, Mary‐Lou van der Horst, Glenda Campbell, Jackie Stroud, Lisa Dolovich, Anna M. Sawka, Ravi Jain, Lynn Nash, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsSt. Peter's HospitalPurdue Pharma (Canada)University of TorontoOsteoporosis CanadaMcMaster UniversityParkwood InstituteSt. Michael's HospitalWestern UniversityMcGill UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMerck CanadaOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareMcMaster UniversityAmgenOsteoporosis CanadaCancer Care OntarioUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicinePharmacyIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialAuditLong-term careFamily medicineCluster randomised controlled trialCluster (spacecraft)Physical therapyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Few studies have systematically examined whether knowledge translation (KT) strategies can be successfully implemented within the long-term care (LTC) setting. In this study, we examined the effectiveness of a multifaceted, interdisciplinary KT intervention for improving the prescribing of vitamin D, calcium and osteoporosis medications over 12-months. METHODS: We conducted a pilot, cluster randomized controlled trial in 40 LTC homes (21 control; 19 intervention) in Ontario, Canada. LTC homes were eligible if they had more than one prescribing physician and received services from a large pharmacy provider. Participants were interdisciplinary care teams (physicians, nurses, consultant pharmacists, and other staff) who met quarterly. Intervention homes participated in three educational meetings over 12 months, including a standardized presentation led by expert opinion leaders, action planning for quality improvement, and audit and feedback review. Control homes did not receive any additional intervention. Resident-level prescribing and clinical outcomes were collected from the pharmacy database; data collectors and analysts were blinded. In addition to feasibility measures, study outcomes were the proportion of residents taking vitamin D (≥800 IU/daily; primary), calcium ≥500 mg/day and osteoporosis medications (high-risk residents) over 12 months. Data were analyzed using the generalized estimating equations technique accounting for clustering within the LTC homes. RESULTS: At baseline, 5,478 residents, mean age 84.4 (standard deviation (SD) 10.9), 71% female, resided in 40 LTC homes, mean size = 137 beds (SD 76.7). In the intention-to-treat analysis (21 control; 19 intervention clusters), the intervention resulted in a significantly greater increase in prescribing from baseline to 12 months between intervention versus control arms for vitamin D (odds ratio (OR) 1.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12, 2.96) and calcium (OR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.74), but not for osteoporosis medications (OR 1.17, 95% CI: 0.91, 1.51). In secondary analyses, excluding seven nonparticipating intervention homes, ORs were 3.06 (95% CI: 2.18, 4.29), 1.57 (95% CI: 1.12, 2.21), 1.20 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.60) for vitamin D, calcium and osteoporosis medications, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our KT intervention significantly improved the prescribing of vitamin D and calcium and is a model that could potentially be applied to other areas requiring quality improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01398527 . Registered: 19 July 2011.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.215
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207