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/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
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 -