Literature DB >> 12603185

Computerised reminders and feedback in medication management: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

John W Bennett1, Paul P Glasziou.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of computer-generated medication reminders or feedback directed to healthcare providers or patients. DATA SOURCES: Extensive computerised and manual literature searches identified 76 English-language reports of RCTs reported before 1 January 2002. Searches were conducted between June 1998 and April 2002. STUDY SELECTION: 26 papers making 29 comparisons (two papers reported on multiple interventions) of computer-supported medication management to a control group. DATA EXTRACTION: The quality of the RCTs was systematically assessed and scored independently by two reviewers. Rates of compliance with (potential) reminders for the control and intervention groups were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Heterogeneity of studies prevented a meta-analysis. Where possible, rates were calculated using the intention-to-treat principle. The comparisons were grouped into five areas. Reminders to providers in outpatient settings: six of 12 comparisons demonstrated positive effects (relative rates [RRs: intervention rates/control rates], 1.0 to 42.0). Provider feedback in outpatient settings: five of seven comparisons showed improved clinician behaviour (RRs, 1.0 to 2.5). Combined reminders and feedback in outpatient settings: the single comparison found no improvement. Reminders to providers in inpatient settings: three of five comparisons showed improvements (RRs, 1.0 to 2.1). Patient-directed reminders: two of four comparisons showed improvements in patient compliance.
CONCLUSION: Reminders are more effective than feedback in modifying physician behaviour related to medication management. Patient-directed reminders can improve medication adherence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12603185     DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05166.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  42 in total

1.  A health examination system integrated with clinical decision support system.

Authors:  Kuan-Liang Kuo; Chiou-Shann Fuh
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 4.460

Review 2.  A review on systematic reviews of health information system studies.

Authors:  Francis Lau; Craig Kuziemsky; Morgan Price; Jesse Gardner
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Application of persuasion and health behavior theories for behavior change counseling: design of the ADAPT (Avoiding Diabetes Thru Action Plan Targeting) program.

Authors:  Jenny J Lin; Devin M Mann
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2012-07-06

4.  The break-even point: when medical advances are less important than improving the fidelity with which they are delivered.

Authors:  Steven H Woolf; Robert E Johnson
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.166

5.  Getting physicians to accept new information technology: insights from case studies.

Authors:  Liette Lapointe; Suzanne Rivard
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2006-05-23       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 6.  Informatics systems to promote improved care for chronic illness: a literature review.

Authors:  David Dorr; Laura M Bonner; Amy N Cohen; Rebecca S Shoai; Ruth Perrin; Edmund Chaney; Alexander S Young
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 7.  What evidence supports the use of computerized alerts and prompts to improve clinicians' prescribing behavior?

Authors:  Angela Schedlbauer; Vibhore Prasad; Caroline Mulvaney; Shobha Phansalkar; Wendy Stanton; David W Bates; Anthony J Avery
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2009-04-23       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 8.  Computerized clinical decision support for prescribing: provision does not guarantee uptake.

Authors:  Annette Moxey; Jane Robertson; David Newby; Isla Hains; Margaret Williamson; Sallie-Anne Pearson
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 9.  The design of decisions: Matching clinical decision support recommendations to Nielsen's design heuristics.

Authors:  Kristen Miller; Muge Capan; Danielle Weldon; Yaman Noaiseh; Rebecca Kowalski; Rachel Kraft; Sanford Schwartz; William S Weintraub; Ryan Arnold
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 4.046

Review 10.  Cardiovascular medication: improving adherence using prompting mechanisms.

Authors:  Liam Glynn; Tom Fahey
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2015-09-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.