Cluster-randomized controlled trial of dissemination strategies of an online quality improvement programme for alcohol-related disorders.

Standard

Cluster-randomized controlled trial of dissemination strategies of an online quality improvement programme for alcohol-related disorders. / Ruf, D; Berner, M; Kriston, Levente; Lohmann, M; Mundle, G; Lorenz, G; Niebling, W; Härter, Martin.

in: ALCOHOL ALCOHOLISM, Jahrgang 45, Nr. 1, 1, 2010, S. 70-78.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/ZeitungSCORING: ZeitschriftenaufsatzForschungBegutachtung

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{33379d5e919e47ecbc06a1a633b4b2fe,
title = "Cluster-randomized controlled trial of dissemination strategies of an online quality improvement programme for alcohol-related disorders.",
abstract = "AIMS: This project investigated different dissemination strategies of an online quality improvement programme for alcohol-related disorders into routine care in South Baden and South W{\"u}rttemberg in Germany. METHODS: In a cluster-randomized controlled trial, 112 general practices were randomized into three groups. The first group (n = 43) received access to the online system and a training programme for the general practitioners (GPs). The second group (n = 42) additionally received education for the whole practice team. The third group (n = 27) acted as control and received only access to the online system. RESULTS: Two thousand six hundred and forty-seven practitioners were asked to take part in the study, and it was possible to randomize 112 (4%) practices. There were no significant differences concerning the use of the system between the groups: 41.9% of the GPs in the first group, 42.9% in the second group and 44.4% in the control group used the system. In terms of only the system users, 55.6% of the GPs in the first group, 33.3% in the second group and 8.3% in the control group used the system six times or more (P = 0.019). Diagnostic assessments made by the GPs in the groups differed substantially: 72.2% of diagnoses in the first group were correct, while this figure lay at 69.7% in the second group and 36.4% in the control group (P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: No effect of the additional training on the primary outcome (acceptance) was identified, but on two of the secondary outcomes. Further cost-effectiveness studies should investigate whether the effort involved in providing training additionally to the system is justifiable. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00314067. This article conforms to the guidelines in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (Moher et al., 2001; Campbell et al., 2004).",
author = "D Ruf and M Berner and Levente Kriston and M Lohmann and G Mundle and G Lorenz and W Niebling and Martin H{\"a}rter",
year = "2010",
language = "Deutsch",
volume = "45",
pages = "70--78",
journal = "ALCOHOL ALCOHOLISM",
issn = "0735-0414",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cluster-randomized controlled trial of dissemination strategies of an online quality improvement programme for alcohol-related disorders.

AU - Ruf, D

AU - Berner, M

AU - Kriston, Levente

AU - Lohmann, M

AU - Mundle, G

AU - Lorenz, G

AU - Niebling, W

AU - Härter, Martin

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - AIMS: This project investigated different dissemination strategies of an online quality improvement programme for alcohol-related disorders into routine care in South Baden and South Württemberg in Germany. METHODS: In a cluster-randomized controlled trial, 112 general practices were randomized into three groups. The first group (n = 43) received access to the online system and a training programme for the general practitioners (GPs). The second group (n = 42) additionally received education for the whole practice team. The third group (n = 27) acted as control and received only access to the online system. RESULTS: Two thousand six hundred and forty-seven practitioners were asked to take part in the study, and it was possible to randomize 112 (4%) practices. There were no significant differences concerning the use of the system between the groups: 41.9% of the GPs in the first group, 42.9% in the second group and 44.4% in the control group used the system. In terms of only the system users, 55.6% of the GPs in the first group, 33.3% in the second group and 8.3% in the control group used the system six times or more (P = 0.019). Diagnostic assessments made by the GPs in the groups differed substantially: 72.2% of diagnoses in the first group were correct, while this figure lay at 69.7% in the second group and 36.4% in the control group (P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: No effect of the additional training on the primary outcome (acceptance) was identified, but on two of the secondary outcomes. Further cost-effectiveness studies should investigate whether the effort involved in providing training additionally to the system is justifiable. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00314067. This article conforms to the guidelines in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (Moher et al., 2001; Campbell et al., 2004).

AB - AIMS: This project investigated different dissemination strategies of an online quality improvement programme for alcohol-related disorders into routine care in South Baden and South Württemberg in Germany. METHODS: In a cluster-randomized controlled trial, 112 general practices were randomized into three groups. The first group (n = 43) received access to the online system and a training programme for the general practitioners (GPs). The second group (n = 42) additionally received education for the whole practice team. The third group (n = 27) acted as control and received only access to the online system. RESULTS: Two thousand six hundred and forty-seven practitioners were asked to take part in the study, and it was possible to randomize 112 (4%) practices. There were no significant differences concerning the use of the system between the groups: 41.9% of the GPs in the first group, 42.9% in the second group and 44.4% in the control group used the system. In terms of only the system users, 55.6% of the GPs in the first group, 33.3% in the second group and 8.3% in the control group used the system six times or more (P = 0.019). Diagnostic assessments made by the GPs in the groups differed substantially: 72.2% of diagnoses in the first group were correct, while this figure lay at 69.7% in the second group and 36.4% in the control group (P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: No effect of the additional training on the primary outcome (acceptance) was identified, but on two of the secondary outcomes. Further cost-effectiveness studies should investigate whether the effort involved in providing training additionally to the system is justifiable. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00314067. This article conforms to the guidelines in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (Moher et al., 2001; Campbell et al., 2004).

M3 - SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz

VL - 45

SP - 70

EP - 78

JO - ALCOHOL ALCOHOLISM

JF - ALCOHOL ALCOHOLISM

SN - 0735-0414

IS - 1

M1 - 1

ER -