MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167980000 · doi:10.1002/chp.21140

A Randomized Trial Assessing the Impact of a Personal Printed Feedback Portrait on Statin Prescribing in Primary Care

2012· article· en· W2167980000 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Colin R. Dormuth, Greg Carney, Suzanne Taylor, Ken Bassett, Malcolm Maclure

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMinistry of HealthUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistry of Health, British Columbia
KeywordsMedicineStatinMedical prescriptionRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalFamily medicineRelative riskIntervention (counseling)Primary careEmergency medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge translation (KT) initiatives have the potential to improve prescribing quality and produce savings that exceed the cost of the KT program itself, including the cost of evaluation using pragmatic study methods. Our objective was to measure the impact and estimated savings resulting from the distribution of individualized physician portraits of statin prescribing along with therapeutic recommendations in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: A paired community design was used to study 2 725 family physicians in British Columbia. Communities were paired according to number of physicians and geographic location, with one community of each pair randomly assigned to an early (n = 1 349) or delayed (n = 1 376) intervention group. The intervention was a personalized prescribing portrait on statins that included therapeutic recommendations. The primary outcome was the impact on new prescribing (defined as statin naive) for primary prevention (defined as no diagnosis of cardiovascular disease) as recorded in the administrative claims databases of the BC Ministry of Health. RESULTS: Compared to the delayed control group, the relative probability of a new statin prescription for primary prevention decreased by 6% in the 12 months after the Education for Quality Improvement in Patient Care (EQIP) portrait compared to the preceding 12 months (relative risk [RR] 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-0.98). There was also a non-statistically significant decrease in new prescribing for secondary prevention in patients diagnosed with cardiovascular disease (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.91-1.01). We estimated that 572 fewer patients started statins for primary prevention in the first year after the portrait was mailed compared to patients in the delayed practices. We estimated the statin cost for those patients as $465,000 in the first two years, while the KT program to provide statin portraits cost less than $100,000. DISCUSSION: The individualized prescribing portrait had a significant beneficial effect on new statin prescribing for primary prevention but not secondary prevention. Provincial drug plan costs appear to have been reduced to a level that exceeded the cost of the program.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.283
GPT teacher head0.631
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Continuing Education in the Health ProfessionsSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207