| Title |
Interventions to improve adherence to cardiovascular disease guidelines: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Primary Care, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12875-015-0341-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca A. Jeffery, Matthew J. To, Gabrielle Hayduk-Costa, Adam Cameron, Cameron Taylor, Colin Van Zoost, Jill A. Hayden |
| Abstract |
Successful management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is impaired by poor adherence to clinical practice guidelines. The objective of our review was to synthesize evidence about the effectiveness of interventions that target healthcare providers to improve adherence to CVD guidelines and patient outcomes. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL databases from inception to June 2014, using search terms related to adherence and clinical practice guidelines. Studies were limited to randomized controlled trials testing an intervention to improve adherence to guidelines that measured both a patient and adherence outcome. Descriptive summary tables were created from data extractions. Meta-analyses were conducted on clinically homogeneous comparisons, and sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were carried out where possible. GRADE summary of findings tables were created for each comparison and outcome. We included 38 RCTs in our review. Interventions included guideline dissemination, education, audit and feedback, and academic detailing. Meta-analyses were conducted for several outcomes by intervention type. Many comparisons favoured the intervention, though only the adherence outcome for the education intervention showed statistically significant improvement compared to usual care (standardized mean difference = 0.58 [95 % confidence interval 0.35 to 0.8]). Many interventions show promise to improve practitioner adherence to CVD guidelines. The quality of evidence and number of trials limited our ability to draw conclusions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 17 | 25% |
| Unknown | 14 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 22% |
| Psychology | 6 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
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 23 October 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#2,212
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,891
of 294,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#40
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 294,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.