在全科综合用药患者中使用电子药物管理支持系统:AdAM试验定量过程评估的研究方案。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety Pub Date : 2022-01-22 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20420986211073215
Robin Brünn, Dorothea Lemke, Kiran Chapidi, Juliane Köberlein-Neu, Alexandra Piotrowski, Sara Söling, Wolfgang Greiner, Petra Kellermann-Mühlhoff, Nina Timmesfeld, Marjan van den Akker, Christiane Muth
{"title":"在全科综合用药患者中使用电子药物管理支持系统:AdAM试验定量过程评估的研究方案。","authors":"Robin Brünn,&nbsp;Dorothea Lemke,&nbsp;Kiran Chapidi,&nbsp;Juliane Köberlein-Neu,&nbsp;Alexandra Piotrowski,&nbsp;Sara Söling,&nbsp;Wolfgang Greiner,&nbsp;Petra Kellermann-Mühlhoff,&nbsp;Nina Timmesfeld,&nbsp;Marjan van den Akker,&nbsp;Christiane Muth","doi":"10.1177/20420986211073215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interventional studies on polypharmacy often fail to significantly improve patient-relevant outcomes, or confine themselves to measuring surrogate parameters. Interventions and settings are complex, with many factors affecting results. The AdAM study's aim is to reduce hospitalization and death by requiring general practitioners (GPs) to use a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The study will undergo a process evaluation to identify factors for successful implementation and to assess whether the intervention was implemented as intended.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate our complex intervention, based on the Medical Research Council's guideline dimensions.</p><p><strong>Research questions: </strong>We will assess implementation (reach, fidelity, dose, tailoring) by asking: (1) Who took part in the intervention (proportion of GPs using the CDSS, proportion of patients enrolled in them)? Information on GPs' and patients' characteristics will also be collected. (2) How many and which medication alerts were dealt with? (3) Was the intervention implemented as intended? (4) On what days did GPs use the intervention tool?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The process evaluation is part of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. Characteristics of practices, GPs and patients using the CDSS will be compared with the non-participating population. CDSS log data will be analyzed to evaluate how the number of medication alerts changed between baseline and 2 months later, and to identify the kind of alerts that were dealt with. Comparison of enrolled patients on weekdays versus weekends will shed light on GPs' use of the CDSS in the absence or presence of patients. Outcomes will be presented using descriptive statistics, and significance tests will be used to identify associations between them. We will conduct subgroup analyses, including time effects to account for software improvements.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study protocol is the basis for conducting analyses of the quantitative process evaluation. By providing insight into how GPs conduct medication reviews, the evaluation will provide context to the trial results and support their interpretation. The evaluation relies on the proper documentation by GPs, potentially limiting its explanatory power.</p>","PeriodicalId":23012,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/87/b9/10.1177_20420986211073215.PMC8796070.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of an electronic medication management support system in patients with polypharmacy in general practice: study protocol of a quantitative process evaluation of the AdAM trial.\",\"authors\":\"Robin Brünn,&nbsp;Dorothea Lemke,&nbsp;Kiran Chapidi,&nbsp;Juliane Köberlein-Neu,&nbsp;Alexandra Piotrowski,&nbsp;Sara Söling,&nbsp;Wolfgang Greiner,&nbsp;Petra Kellermann-Mühlhoff,&nbsp;Nina Timmesfeld,&nbsp;Marjan van den Akker,&nbsp;Christiane Muth\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20420986211073215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interventional studies on polypharmacy often fail to significantly improve patient-relevant outcomes, or confine themselves to measuring surrogate parameters. Interventions and settings are complex, with many factors affecting results. The AdAM study's aim is to reduce hospitalization and death by requiring general practitioners (GPs) to use a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The study will undergo a process evaluation to identify factors for successful implementation and to assess whether the intervention was implemented as intended.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate our complex intervention, based on the Medical Research Council's guideline dimensions.</p><p><strong>Research questions: </strong>We will assess implementation (reach, fidelity, dose, tailoring) by asking: (1) Who took part in the intervention (proportion of GPs using the CDSS, proportion of patients enrolled in them)? Information on GPs' and patients' characteristics will also be collected. (2) How many and which medication alerts were dealt with? (3) Was the intervention implemented as intended? (4) On what days did GPs use the intervention tool?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The process evaluation is part of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. Characteristics of practices, GPs and patients using the CDSS will be compared with the non-participating population. CDSS log data will be analyzed to evaluate how the number of medication alerts changed between baseline and 2 months later, and to identify the kind of alerts that were dealt with. Comparison of enrolled patients on weekdays versus weekends will shed light on GPs' use of the CDSS in the absence or presence of patients. Outcomes will be presented using descriptive statistics, and significance tests will be used to identify associations between them. We will conduct subgroup analyses, including time effects to account for software improvements.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study protocol is the basis for conducting analyses of the quantitative process evaluation. By providing insight into how GPs conduct medication reviews, the evaluation will provide context to the trial results and support their interpretation. The evaluation relies on the proper documentation by GPs, potentially limiting its explanatory power.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/87/b9/10.1177_20420986211073215.PMC8796070.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20420986211073215\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20420986211073215","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:多药介入研究往往不能显著改善患者相关结局,或局限于测量替代参数。干预措施和环境是复杂的,影响结果的因素很多。AdAM研究的目的是通过要求全科医生(gp)使用计算机决策支持系统(CDSS)来减少住院和死亡。该研究将进行过程评估,以确定成功实施的因素,并评估干预措施是否按预期实施。目的:根据医学研究委员会的指南维度评估我们的复杂干预措施。研究问题:我们将通过以下问题来评估实施情况(覆盖范围、保真度、剂量、剪裁):(1)谁参与了干预(使用CDSS的全科医生比例,参加干预的患者比例)?全科医生和病人的特征信息也将被收集。(2)有多少和哪些药物警报得到了处理?(3)干预是否按预期实施?(4)全科医生在哪些日子使用干预工具?方法:工艺评价是一项楔形聚类随机对照试验的一部分。将实践、全科医生和使用CDSS的患者的特征与未参与人群进行比较。将分析CDSS日志数据,以评估药物警报的数量在基线和2个月后的变化情况,并确定处理的警报类型。将入组患者在工作日与周末的比较将揭示全科医生在患者缺席或在场的情况下使用CDSS的情况。结果将使用描述性统计来呈现,显著性检验将用于确定它们之间的关联。我们将进行分组分析,包括时间效应来解释软件改进。讨论:本研究方案是进行定量过程评价分析的基础。通过深入了解全科医生如何进行药物审查,评估将为试验结果提供背景并支持其解释。评估依赖于全科医生的适当文件,这可能会限制其解释力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Use of an electronic medication management support system in patients with polypharmacy in general practice: study protocol of a quantitative process evaluation of the AdAM trial.

Use of an electronic medication management support system in patients with polypharmacy in general practice: study protocol of a quantitative process evaluation of the AdAM trial.

Use of an electronic medication management support system in patients with polypharmacy in general practice: study protocol of a quantitative process evaluation of the AdAM trial.

Use of an electronic medication management support system in patients with polypharmacy in general practice: study protocol of a quantitative process evaluation of the AdAM trial.

Background: Interventional studies on polypharmacy often fail to significantly improve patient-relevant outcomes, or confine themselves to measuring surrogate parameters. Interventions and settings are complex, with many factors affecting results. The AdAM study's aim is to reduce hospitalization and death by requiring general practitioners (GPs) to use a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The study will undergo a process evaluation to identify factors for successful implementation and to assess whether the intervention was implemented as intended.

Objective: To evaluate our complex intervention, based on the Medical Research Council's guideline dimensions.

Research questions: We will assess implementation (reach, fidelity, dose, tailoring) by asking: (1) Who took part in the intervention (proportion of GPs using the CDSS, proportion of patients enrolled in them)? Information on GPs' and patients' characteristics will also be collected. (2) How many and which medication alerts were dealt with? (3) Was the intervention implemented as intended? (4) On what days did GPs use the intervention tool?

Methods: The process evaluation is part of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. Characteristics of practices, GPs and patients using the CDSS will be compared with the non-participating population. CDSS log data will be analyzed to evaluate how the number of medication alerts changed between baseline and 2 months later, and to identify the kind of alerts that were dealt with. Comparison of enrolled patients on weekdays versus weekends will shed light on GPs' use of the CDSS in the absence or presence of patients. Outcomes will be presented using descriptive statistics, and significance tests will be used to identify associations between them. We will conduct subgroup analyses, including time effects to account for software improvements.

Discussion: This study protocol is the basis for conducting analyses of the quantitative process evaluation. By providing insight into how GPs conduct medication reviews, the evaluation will provide context to the trial results and support their interpretation. The evaluation relies on the proper documentation by GPs, potentially limiting its explanatory power.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety Medicine-Pharmacology (medical)
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
31
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies pertaining to the safe use of drugs in patients. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in drug safety, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area. The editors welcome articles of current interest on research across all areas of drug safety, including therapeutic drug monitoring, pharmacoepidemiology, adverse drug reactions, drug interactions, pharmacokinetics, pharmacovigilance, medication/prescribing errors, risk management, ethics and regulation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信