• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

反馈可操作的个体患者处方数据以改善哮喘用药处方:英国233家全科诊所的实用整群随机试验

Feedback of actionable individual patient prescription data to improve asthma prescribing: pragmatic cluster randomised trial in 233 UK general practices.

作者信息

MacBride-Stewart Sean, Marwick Charis, Ryan Margaret, Guthrie Bruce

机构信息

Pharmacy Services, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow.

Department of Population Health and Genomics, University of Dundee, Dundee.

出版信息

Br J Gen Pract. 2022 Apr 29;72(722):e627-33. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2021.0695.

DOI:10.3399/BJGP.2021.0695
PMID:35817581
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9282800/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) of asthma bronchodilator inhalers is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness of feedback on the PIP of bronchodilator inhalers.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Pragmatic cluster randomised trial involving 235 of 244 (96.3%) GP practices in one Scottish health board.

METHOD

Practices were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to individualised feedback (including visualised medication histories for each patient and action-oriented messages) on PIP of bronchodilator inhalers from prescription data; feedback reports were sent in July 2015, February 2016, and August 2016. Controls were sent feedback on an unrelated subject. The primary outcome was the change in the mean number of patients per practice with PIP of bronchodilator inhalers from the baseline period (August 2014-July 2015) until the post-feedback period (February 2016-January 2017), identified through a composite of five individual measures using prescription data.

RESULTS

In the analysis of the primary outcome, the mean number of patients with PIP of bronchodilator inhalers fell in the 118 practices that were sent feedback from 21.8 per practice to 17.7 per practice. Numbers fell marginally in the 115 control practices, from 20.5 per practice to 20.2 per practice, with a statistically significant difference between the two groups. There were 3.7 fewer patients per practice with PIP of bronchodilator inhalers in the intervention practices versus the control practices (95% confidence interval = -5.3 to -2.0).

CONCLUSION

Individualised feedback of PIP of asthma bronchodilators that included background information, visualised medication histories for each patient, and action-oriented messages was effective at reducing the number of patients exposed to excess or unsafe prescribing of bronchodilator inhalers.

摘要

背景

哮喘支气管扩张剂吸入器的潜在不适当处方(PIP)与发病率和死亡率增加相关。

目的

评估关于支气管扩张剂吸入器PIP的反馈的有效性。

设计与设置

一项实用的整群随机试验,涉及苏格兰一个卫生委员会244家全科医生诊所中的235家(96.3%)。

方法

根据处方数据,将诊所按1:1比例随机分配,以获得关于支气管扩张剂吸入器PIP的个性化反馈(包括每位患者的可视化用药史和面向行动的信息);反馈报告于2015年7月、2016年2月和2016年8月发送。对照组收到关于一个不相关主题的反馈。主要结局是从基线期(2014年8月至2015年7月)到反馈后时期(2016年2月至2017年1月),每个诊所支气管扩张剂吸入器PIP患者的平均数量变化,通过使用处方数据的五项个体测量指标综合确定。

结果

在主要结局分析中,收到反馈的118家诊所中,支气管扩张剂吸入器PIP患者的平均数量从每家诊所21.8例降至17.7例。115家对照诊所的数量略有下降,从每家诊所20.5例降至20.2例,两组间差异有统计学意义。干预组诊所中支气管扩张剂吸入器PIP患者每家诊所比对照组少3.7例(95%置信区间 = -5.3至 -2.0)。

结论

哮喘支气管扩张剂PIP的个性化反馈,包括背景信息、每位患者的可视化用药史和面向行动的信息,在减少暴露于支气管扩张剂吸入器过量或不安全处方的患者数量方面是有效的。

相似文献

1
Feedback of actionable individual patient prescription data to improve asthma prescribing: pragmatic cluster randomised trial in 233 UK general practices.反馈可操作的个体患者处方数据以改善哮喘用药处方:英国233家全科诊所的实用整群随机试验
Br J Gen Pract. 2022 Apr 29;72(722):e627-33. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2021.0695.
2
Which patients are prescribed inhaled anti-asthma drugs?哪些患者会被开吸入式抗哮喘药物?
Thorax. 1994 Nov;49(11):1090-5. doi: 10.1136/thx.49.11.1090.
3
Electronically delivered interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory infections in primary care: cluster RCT using electronic health records and cohort study.电子干预措施减少初级保健中呼吸道感染抗生素处方:使用电子健康记录的群组 RCT 和队列研究。
Health Technol Assess. 2019 Mar;23(11):1-70. doi: 10.3310/hta23110.
4
Comparison of the effectiveness of inhaler devices in asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease: a systematic review of the literature.吸入装置在哮喘和慢性阻塞性气道疾病中的有效性比较:文献系统评价
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(26):1-149. doi: 10.3310/hta5260.
5
An Audit and Feedback Intervention for Reducing Antibiotic Prescribing in General Dental Practice: The RAPiD Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial.一项减少普通牙科诊所抗生素处方的审核与反馈干预措施:RAPiD群组随机对照试验
PLoS Med. 2016 Aug 30;13(8):e1002115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002115. eCollection 2016 Aug.
6
Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Intervention for Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in Older Patients in Primary Care: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial (OPTI-SCRIPT Study).一项针对初级保健中老年患者潜在不适当处方的多方面干预措施的有效性:一项整群随机对照试验(OPTI-SCRIPT研究)。
Ann Fam Med. 2015 Nov;13(6):545-53. doi: 10.1370/afm.1838.
7
8
TRial to Assess Implementation of New research in a primary care Setting (TRAINS): study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of an educational intervention to promote asthma prescription uptake in general practitioner practices.评估初级保健环境中新研究实施情况的试验(TRAINS):一项实用的群组随机对照试验的研究方案,该试验旨在教育干预措施,以促进全科医生实践中哮喘处方的使用。
Trials. 2022 Nov 17;23(1):947. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06864-y.
9
Effectiveness and safety of electronically delivered prescribing feedback and decision support on antibiotic use for respiratory illness in primary care: REDUCE cluster randomised trial.电子传递处方反馈和决策支持对初级保健中呼吸道疾病抗生素使用的有效性和安全性:RE- DUCE 集群随机试验。
BMJ. 2019 Feb 12;364:l236. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l236.
10
A process evaluation of a cluster randomised trial to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people in primary care (OPTI-SCRIPT study).一项关于在初级保健中减少老年人潜在不适当处方的整群随机试验的过程评估(OPTI-SCRIPT研究)。
Trials. 2016 Aug 3;17(1):386. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1513-z.

引用本文的文献

1
Effectiveness of interactive dashboards to optimize prescribing in general practice: a systematic review.交互式仪表板在优化全科医疗处方方面的有效性:一项系统评价。
Fam Pract. 2025 Jun 4;42(4). doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmaf036.
2
Design, implementation, and inferential issues associated with clinical trials that rely on data in electronic medical records: a narrative review.依赖电子病历数据的临床试验的设计、实施和推论问题:叙述性综述。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Nov 16;23(1):271. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02102-4.

本文引用的文献

1
Global Initiative for Asthma Strategy 2021: executive summary and rationale for key changes.全球哮喘倡议 2021 战略:执行摘要和关键变更的理由。
Eur Respir J. 2021 Dec 31;59(1). doi: 10.1183/13993003.02730-2021. Print 2022 Jan.
2
Asthma-Related Health Outcomes Associated with Short-Acting β-Agonist Inhaler Use: An Observational UK Study as Part of the SABINA Global Program.与短效 β 激动剂吸入器使用相关的哮喘相关健康结局:作为 SABINA 全球计划的一部分的英国观察性研究。
Adv Ther. 2020 Oct;37(10):4190-4208. doi: 10.1007/s12325-020-01444-5. Epub 2020 Jul 27.
3
Analysis of cluster randomised trials with an assessment of outcome at baseline.
对具有基线结局评估的整群随机试验进行分析。
BMJ. 2018 Mar 20;360:k1121. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1121.
4
Evaluation of a complex intervention to improve primary care prescribing: a phase IV segmented regression interrupted time series analysis.评估一项改善基层医疗处方的复杂干预措施:IV期分段回归中断时间序列分析
Br J Gen Pract. 2017 May;67(658):e352-e360. doi: 10.3399/bjgp17X690437. Epub 2017 Mar 27.
5
Data feedback and behavioural change intervention to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS): multicentre, three arm, cluster randomised controlled trial.数据反馈与行为改变干预以改善初级保健处方安全性(EFIPPS):多中心、三臂、整群随机对照试验
BMJ. 2016 Aug 18;354:i4079. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4079.
6
Asthma prescribing, ethnicity and risk of hospital admission: an analysis of 35,864 linked primary and secondary care records in East London.哮喘处方、种族与住院风险:对伦敦东部 35864 例初级和二级保健记录的分析。
NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2016 Aug 18;26:16049. doi: 10.1038/npjpcrm.2016.49.
7
Safer Prescribing--A Trial of Education, Informatics, and Financial Incentives.更安全的处方——教育、信息学和经济激励的试验。
N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 17;374(11):1053-64. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1508955.
8
The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose.PRECIS-2工具:设计符合目的的试验。
BMJ. 2015 May 8;350:h2147. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2147.
9
Testing for baseline differences in randomized controlled trials: an unhealthy research behavior that is hard to eradicate.随机对照试验中的基线差异检验:一种难以根除的不良研究行为。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015 Jan 24;12:4. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0162-z.
10
Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in adults with asthma: an overview of Cochrane reviews.成人哮喘患者使用福莫特罗或沙美特罗常规剂型的安全性:Cochrane系统评价综述
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 6;2014(2):CD010314. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010314.pub2.