BACKGROUND: Out reach facilitation is designed to promote uptake of evidence-based guidelines. There is evidence indicating that outreach facilitation can be effective in improving implementation of preventive care in GPs' offices. In this trial, we test a modified version of an outreach facilitation intervention. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a comprehensive preventive intervention program using outreach facilitators improves preventive care delivery. DESIGN: Match-paired, cluster-randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Fee-for-service primary care practices in Eastern Ontario, Canada, at a time of physician shortage. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer sample of 54 primary care practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean difference between trial arms in practices' delivery of preventive manoeuvres, measured by preventive performance indices estimated from chart reviews and patient survey data. RESULTS: No difference was detected between the trial's arms for the primary outcome's overall prevention index [2.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.2 to 7.3; P = 0.44]. A small significant difference between the arms was detected for the secondary outcome's overall prevention index (2.8%; 95% CI 0.7-4.8; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In contrast to similar facilitation trials, this outreach facilitation program did not produce improvements in the delivery of preventive care. This lack of effect may be due to differences in the intervention and context, or the practice's limited capacity to change. Our intervention simultaneously facilitated a high number of manoeuvres, blinded facilitators and physicians to the targeted tests and had a relatively short intervention period and large number of practices assigned per facilitator. Changes in the primary care service model in Ontario at the time of the trial could have also washed out the intervention effect.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Out reach facilitation is designed to promote uptake of evidence-based guidelines. There is evidence indicating that outreach facilitation can be effective in improving implementation of preventive care in GPs' offices. In this trial, we test a modified version of an outreach facilitation intervention. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a comprehensive preventive intervention program using outreach facilitators improves preventive care delivery. DESIGN: Match-paired, cluster-randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Fee-for-service primary care practices in Eastern Ontario, Canada, at a time of physician shortage. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer sample of 54 primary care practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean difference between trial arms in practices' delivery of preventive manoeuvres, measured by preventive performance indices estimated from chart reviews and patient survey data. RESULTS: No difference was detected between the trial's arms for the primary outcome's overall prevention index [2.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.2 to 7.3; P = 0.44]. A small significant difference between the arms was detected for the secondary outcome's overall prevention index (2.8%; 95% CI 0.7-4.8; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In contrast to similar facilitation trials, this outreach facilitation program did not produce improvements in the delivery of preventive care. This lack of effect may be due to differences in the intervention and context, or the practice's limited capacity to change. Our intervention simultaneously facilitated a high number of manoeuvres, blinded facilitators and physicians to the targeted tests and had a relatively short intervention period and large number of practices assigned per facilitator. Changes in the primary care service model in Ontario at the time of the trial could have also washed out the intervention effect.
Authors: Simone Dahrouge; William E Hogg; Grant Russell; Meltem Tuna; Robert Geneau; Laura K Muldoon; Elizabeth Kristjansson; John Fletcher Journal: CMAJ Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: William Hogg; Elizabeth Gyorfi-Dyke; Sharon Johnston; Simone Dahrouge; Clare Liddy; Grant Russell; Elizabeth Kristjansson Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Antonia F H Smelt; Gerda M van der Weele; Jeanet W Blom; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Willem J J Assendelft Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Andrew Wang; Teresa Pollack; Lauren A Kadziel; Samuel M Ross; Megan McHugh; Neil Jordan; Abel N Kho Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lindsay A Ballengee; Sharron Rushton; Allison A Lewinski; Soohyun Hwang; Leah L Zullig; Katharine A Ball Ricks; Katherine Ramos; Mulugu V Brahmajothi; Thomasena S Moore; Dan V Blalock; Sarah Cantrell; Andrzej S Kosinski; Adelaide Gordon; Belinda Ear; John W Williams; Jennifer M Gierisch; Karen M Goldstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Roberto Cardarelli; Sarah Weatherford; Jennifer Schilling; Dana King; Sue Workman; Wade Rankin; Juanita Hughes; Jonathan Piercy; Amy Conley-Sallaz; Melissa Zook; Kendra Unger; Emma White; Barbara Astuto; Bobbi Stover Journal: J Patient Cent Res Rev Date: 2017-11-06
Authors: Mark F Harris; Jane Lloyd; John Litt; Mieke van Driel; Danielle Mazza; Grant Russell; Jane Smith; Chris Del Mar; Elizabeth Denney-Wilson; Sharon Parker; Yordanka Krastev; Upali W Jayasinghe; Richard Taylor; Nick Zwar; Jinty Wilson; Helen Bolger-Harris; Justine Waters Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 7.327