MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 5147: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial to Evaluate an Ambulatory Primary Care Management Program for Patients with Dyslipidemia: TEAM Study

2008· article· en· W63657712 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julie Villeneuve, Jacques Genest, Marc Frédette, Lucie Blais, Djamal Berbiche, Diane Lamarre, Marie‐Thérèse Lussier, Marie‐Claude Vanier, Éveline Hudon, Lyne Lalonde

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalCentre Integre de Sante et de Services Sociaux de LavalMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacistDyslipidemiaMedical prescriptionClinical endpointFamily medicineRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePharmacyPharmacologyObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dyslipidemia management in primary care is often sub-optimal. New Quebec (Canada) legislation increases the potential for family physician-community pharmacist collaborative care (PPCC). We hypothesized that PPCC can improve the management of dyslipidemia. In a randomized controlled trial, clusters of physicians and pharmacists within the same geographical area were randomly assigned to the PPCC or the usual care (UC) group. PPCC pharmacists attended a one-day workshop and successfully completed a clinical skills evaluation. In the PPCC intervention, the physicians are responsible for the diagnosis and the prescription of lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy, while the pharmacists initiate treatment; request appropriate laboratory tests; monitor effectiveness, safety, and adherence to treatment; and adjust medication dosage accordingly. In PPCC, physician-pharmacist communication procedures were pre defined to enhance professional collaboration. Moderate and high CHD risk patients initiating statin treatment or currently on treatment but inadequately controlled were recruited and followed-up for 1 year. The primary endpoint was the mean change difference in LDL between groups after 1 year. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients at or below their target LDL and TC/HDL ratio, as defined by the Canadian Lipid Guidelines, after 1 year. Multilevel and multivariate regression models were used. We enrolled 15 clusters of physicians and pharmacists (PPCC: 108 patients; UC: 117 patients). The mean change in LDL after 1 year was -1.11 mmol/L (95%CI: −1.26 to −0.96) and −0.89 mmol/L (−0.95 to −0.83) in PPCC and UC groups, respectively. The adjusted mean change difference in LDL between PPCC and UC groups was −0.11 mmol/L (−0.34 to 0.11). After 1 year, 80.6% of PPCC patients and 72.9% of UC patients were at or below their target lipid levels (adjusted OR 2.1; 1.2 to 3.8; p=0.008). PPCC patients had more lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy changes (OR: 2.0; 1.1 to 3.8) and were more likely to report lifestyle changes (OR: 3.9; 2.4 to 6.3). Our data shows that the Family physician-community pharmacist collaborative care improves the adherence to the Canadian Lipid Guidelines.( ISRCTN66345533 )

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)0.004
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→