↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility and impact of implementing a private care system’s diabetes quality improvement intervention in the safety net: a cluster-randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, June 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Feasibility and impact of implementing a private care system’s diabetes quality improvement intervention in the safety net: a cluster-randomized trial
Published in
Implementation Science, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0259-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Gold, Christine Nelson, Stuart Cowburn, Arwen Bunce, Celine Hollombe, James Davis, John Muench, Christian Hill, Meena Mital, Jon Puro, Nancy Perrin, Greg Nichols, Ann Turner, MaryBeth Mercer, Victoria Jaworski, Colleen Howard, Emma Abiles, Amit Shah, James Dudl, Wiley Chan, Jennifer DeVoe

Abstract

Integrated health care delivery systems devote considerable resources to developing quality improvement (QI) interventions. Clinics serving vulnerable populations rarely have the resources for such development but might benefit greatly from implementing approaches shown to be effective in other settings. Little trial-based research has assessed the feasibility and impact of such cross-setting translation and implementation in community health centers (CHCs). We hypothesized that it would be feasible to implement successful QI interventions from integrated care settings in CHCs and would positively impact the CHCs. We adapted Kaiser Permanente's successful intervention, which targets guideline-based cardioprotective prescribing for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), through an iterative, stakeholder-driven process. We then conducted a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial in 11 CHCs in a staggered process with six "early" CHCs implementing the intervention one year before five "'late" CHCs. We measured monthly rates of patients with DM currently prescribed angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors/statins, if clinically indicated. Through segmented regression analysis, we evaluated the intervention's effects in June 2011-May 2013. Participants included ~6500 adult CHC patients with DM who were indicated for statins/ACE-inhibitors per national guidelines. Implementation of the intervention in the CHCs was feasible, with setting-specific adaptations. One year post-implementation, in the early clinics, there were estimated relative increases in guideline-concordant prescribing of 37.6 % (95 % confidence interval (CI); 29.0-46.2 %) among patients indicated for both ACE-inhibitors and statins and 38.7 % (95 % CI; 23.2-54.2 %) among patients indicated for statins. No such increases were seen in the late (control) clinics in that period. To our knowledge, this was the first clinical trial testing the translation and implementation of a successful QI initiative from a private, integrated care setting into CHCs. This proved feasible and had significant impact but required considerable adaptation and implementation support. These results suggest the feasibility of adapting diverse strategies developed in integrated care settings for implementation in under-resourced clinics, with important implications for efficiently improving care quality in such settings. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT02299791 .

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 123 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 14 11%
Student > Master 14 11%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 38 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 44 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 June 2015.
All research outputs
#1,643,813
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#356
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,490
of 266,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#5
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 266,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.