↓ Skip to main content

Implementing guidelines to routinely prevent chronic vascular disease in primary care: the Preventive Evidence into Practice cluster randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementing guidelines to routinely prevent chronic vascular disease in primary care: the Preventive Evidence into Practice cluster randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMJ Open, December 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009397
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Fort Harris, Sharon M Parker, John Litt, Mieke van Driel, Grant Russell, Danielle Mazza, Upali W Jayasinghe, Chris Del Mar, Jane Lloyd, Jane Smith, Nicholas Zwar, Richard Taylor, Gawaine Powell Davies, Mark Harris, Elizabeth Denney-Wilson, Rachel Laws, Teri Snowdon, Helen Bolger-Harris, Stan Goldstein, Teresa Howarth, Nancy Huang, Jinty Wilson

Abstract

To evaluate an intervention to improve implementation of guidelines for the prevention of chronic vascular disease. 32 urban general practices in 4 Australian states. Stratified randomisation of practices. 122 general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) were recruited at baseline and 97 continued to 12 months. 21 848 patient records were audited for those aged 40-69 years who attended the practice in the previous 12 months without heart disease, stroke, diabetes, chronic renal disease, cognitive impairment or severe mental illness. The practice level intervention over 6 months included small group training of practice staff, feedback on audited performance, practice facilitation visits and provision of patient education and referral information. Primary: 1. Change in proportion of patients aged 40-69 years with smoking status, alcohol intake, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), blood pressure (BP) recorded and for those aged 45-69 years with lipids, fasting blood glucose and cardiovascular risk in the medical record. 2. Change in the level of risk for each factor. SECONDARY: change in self-reported frequency and confidence of GPs and PNs in assessment. Risk recording improved in the intervention but not the control group for WC (OR 2.52 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.91)), alcohol consumption (OR 2.19 (CI 1.04 to 4.64)), smoking status (OR 2.24 (1.17 to 4.29)) and cardiovascular risk (OR 1.50 (1.04 to 2.18)). There was no change in recording of BP, lipids, glucose or BMI and no significant change in the level of risk factors based on audit data. The confidence but not reported practices of GPs and PNs in the intervention group improved in the assessment of some risk factors. This intervention was associated with improved recording of some risk factors but no change in the level of risk at the follow-up audit. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808, results.

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 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 211 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 19%
Student > Bachelor 32 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Researcher 15 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 4%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 69 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 19%
Psychology 21 10%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 77 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,753,240
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#10,984
of 25,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,969
of 395,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#213
of 424 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,582 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 395,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 424 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.