↓ Skip to main content

An Australian general practice based strategy to improve chronic disease prevention, and its impact on patient reported outcomes: evaluation of the preventive evidence into practice cluster…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
An Australian general practice based strategy to improve chronic disease prevention, and its impact on patient reported outcomes: evaluation of the preventive evidence into practice cluster randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2586-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Fort Harris, Sharon M. Parker, John Litt, Mieke van Driel, Grant Russell, Danielle Mazza, Upali W. Jayasinghe, Jane Smith, Chris Del Mar, Riki Lane, Elizabeth Denney-Wilson, On behalf of the Preventive Evidence into Practice Partnership Group

Abstract

Implementing evidence-based chronic disease prevention with a practice-wide population is challenging in primary care. PEP Intervention practices received education, clinical audit and feedback and practice facilitation. Patients (40‑69 years) without chronic disease from trial and control practices were invited to participate in baseline and 12 month follow up questionnaires. Patient-recalled receipt of GP services and referral, and the proportion of patients at risk were compared over time and between intervention and control groups. Mean difference in BMI, diet and physical activity between baseline and follow up were calculated and compared using a paired t-test. Change in the proportion of patients meeting the definition for physical activity diet and weight risk was calculated using McNemar's test and multilevel analysis was used to determine the effect of the intervention on follow-up scores. Five hundred eighty nine patients completed both questionnaires. No significant changes were found in the proportion of patients reporting a BP, cholesterol, glucose or weight check in either group. Less than one in six at-risk patients reported receiving lifestyle advice or referral at baseline with little change at follow up. More intervention patients reported attempts to improve their diet and reduce weight. Mean score improved for diet in the intervention group (p = 0.04) but self-reported BMI and PA risk did not significantly change in either group. There was no significant change in the proportion of patients who reported being at-risk for diet, PA or weight, and no changes in PA, diet and BMI in multilevel linear regression adjusted for patient age, sex, practice size and state. There was good fidelity to the intervention but practices varied in their capacity to address changes. The lack of measurable effect within this trial may be attributable to the complexities around behaviour change and/or system change. This trial highlights some of the challenges in providing suitable chronic disease preventive interventions which are both scalable to whole practice populations and meet the needs of diverse practice structures. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808 (29/5/2012). This trial registration is retrospective as our first patient returned their consent on the 21/5/2012. Patient recruitment was ongoing until 31/10/2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Master 13 10%
Other 12 9%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 37 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 13%
Psychology 9 7%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 41 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,232,490
of 24,787,209 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,788
of 8,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,009
of 321,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#84
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,787,209 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,385 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 321,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.