↓ Skip to main content

Study protocol: transforming outcomes for patients through medical home evaluation and redesign: a cluster randomized controlled trial to test high value elements for patient-centered medical homes…

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Study protocol: transforming outcomes for patients through medical home evaluation and redesign: a cluster randomized controlled trial to test high value elements for patient-centered medical homes versus quality improvement
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0204-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A Dorr, Kenneth John McConnell, Marsha Pierre-Jacques Williams, Kimberley A Gray, Jesse Wagner, Lyle J Fagnan, Elizabeth Malcolm

Abstract

BackgroundHealth care in the United States is in the midst of a near perfect storm: strong cost pressures, dramatic redesign efforts like patient-centered medical homes and accountable care organizations, and a broad series of payment and eligibility reforms. To date, alternative models of care intended to reduce costs and improve outcomes have shown mixed effects in the U.S., in part due to the difficulty of performing rigorous evaluation studies that control for the broader transformation while avoiding other biases, such as organizational or clinic effect on individual patient outcomes. Our objective is to test whether clinics assigned to achieve high value elements (HVEs) of practice redesign are more likely than controls to achieve improvements in patient health and satisfaction with care and reduction in costs.Methods/DesignTo prepare, we interview stakeholders, align with health reform, and propose a pilot. Participants are primary care clinics engaged in reform. Study protocol requires that both arms receive monthly practice facilitation, IT-based milestone reporting, and small financial incentives based on self-determined quality improvement (QI) goals; intervention receives additional prompting to choose HVEs. Design is a cluster randomized controlled trial over 1 year with pre- and post-washout periods. Outcomes are unplanned utilization and costs, patient experience of care, quality, and team performance. Analysis is a multivariate difference-in-difference with adjustments for patient risk, intraclinic correlation, and other confounders.DiscussionThe TOPMED study is a cluster randomized controlled trial focused on learning how primary care practices can transform within health reform guidelines to achieve outcomes related to the Triple Aim.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02106221.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 18%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 9 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2015.
All research outputs
#17,737,508
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,627
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,581
of 351,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#53
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.