↓ Skip to main content

Results from the CLUES study: a cluster randomized trial for the evaluation of cardiovascular guideline implementation in primary care in Spain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 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
Results from the CLUES study: a cluster randomized trial for the evaluation of cardiovascular guideline implementation in primary care in Spain
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2863-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arritxu Etxeberria, Idoia Alcorta, Itziar Pérez, Jose Ignacio Emparanza, Elena Ruiz de Velasco, Maria Teresa Iglesias, Rafael Rotaeche

Abstract

The implementation of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPG) can improve patients care. To date, the impact of implementation strategies has not been evaluated in our context. This study is aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted tailored intervention targeting clinician education for the implementation of three cardiovascular risk-related CPGs (type 2 diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia) in primary care at the Basque Health Service compared with usual implementation. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial in two urban districts with 43 primary care units (PCU). Data from all patients diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension and all those eligible for coronary risk (CR) assessment were included. In the control group, guidelines were introduced in the usual way (by email, intranet and clinical meetings). In the intervention group, the implementation also included a specific website and workshops. Primary endpoints were annual HbA1c testing (diabetes), annual general laboratory testing (hypertension) and annual CR assessment (dyslipidemia). Secondary endpoints were process, prescription and clinical endpoints related with guideline recommendations. Analysis was performed at a PCU level weighted by cluster size. Significant differences between groups were observed in primary outcomes in the dyslipidemia CPG: increased CR assessment for both women and men (weighted mean difference, WMD, 13.58 and 12.91%). No significant differences were observed in diabetes and hypertension CPGs primary outcomes. Regarding secondary endpoints, annual CR assessment was significantly higher in both diabetic and hypertensive patients in the intervention group (WMD 28.16 and 27.55%). Rates of CR assessment before starting new statin treatments also increased (WMD 23.09%), resulting in a lower rate of statin prescribing in low risk women. Diuretic prescribing was higher in the intervention group (WMD 20.59%). Clinical outcomes (HbA1c and blood pressure control) did not differ between groups. The multifaceted implementation proved to be effective to increase the CR assessment and to improve prescription, but ineffective to improve diabetes and hypertension related outcomes. In order to obtain real improvements when cardiovascular issues are tackled, perhaps other or additional interventions need to be implemented besides education of professionals. Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN 88876909 (retrospectively registered on January 13, 2009).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 214 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 42 20%
Student > Master 22 10%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Researcher 16 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 70 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 21%
Unspecified 42 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Social Sciences 3 1%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 75 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 16 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,037,909
of 23,849,241 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#758
of 8,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,342
of 445,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#29
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,241 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 445,113 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.