评估由教育和反馈组成的多成分干预减少全科医生苯二氮卓类药物处方:benzor混合1型随机对照试验

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL PLoS Medicine Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003983
C. Vicens, A. Leiva, F. Bejarano, Ermengol Sempere-Verdú, R. M. Rodríguez-Rincón, F. Fiol, M. Mengual, Asunción Ajenjo-Navarro, F. Do Pazo, C. Mateu, S. Folch, Santiago Alegret, J. Coll, M. Martín-rabadan, I. Socias
{"title":"评估由教育和反馈组成的多成分干预减少全科医生苯二氮卓类药物处方:benzor混合1型随机对照试验","authors":"C. Vicens, A. Leiva, F. Bejarano, Ermengol Sempere-Verdú, R. M. Rodríguez-Rincón, F. Fiol, M. Mengual, Asunción Ajenjo-Navarro, F. Do Pazo, C. Mateu, S. Folch, Santiago Alegret, J. Coll, M. Martín-rabadan, I. Socias","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1003983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Current benzodiazepine (BZD) prescription guidelines recommend short-term use to minimize the risk of dependence, cognitive impairment, and falls and fractures. However, many clinicians overprescribe BZDs and chronic use by patients is common. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions delivered by general practitioners (GPs) on reducing prescriptions and long-term use of BZDs. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention for GPs that seeks to reduce BZD prescriptions and the prevalence of long-term users. Methods and findings We conducted a multicenter two-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial in 3 health districts in Spain (primary health centers [PHCs] in Balearic Islands, Catalonia, and Valencian Community) from September 2016 to May 2018. The 81 PHCs were randomly allocated to the intervention group (n = 41; 372 GPs) or the control group (n = 40; 377 GPs). GPs were not blinded to the allocation; however, pharmacists, researchers, and trial statisticians were blinded to the allocation arm. The intervention consisted of a workshop about the appropriate prescribing of BZDs and tapering-off long-term BZD use using a tailored stepped dose reduction with monthly BZD prescription feedback and access to a support web page. The primary outcome, based on 700 GPs (351 in the control group and 349 in the intervention group), compared changes in BZD prescriptions in defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1,000 inhabitants per day after 12 months. The 2 secondary outcomes were the proportion of long-term users (≥6 months) and the proportion of long-term users over age 65 years. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used to assess all clinical outcomes. Forty-nine GPs (21 intervention group and 28 control group) were lost to follow-up. However, all GPs were included in the ITT analysis. After 12 months, there were a statistically significant decline in total BZD prescription in the intervention group compared to the control group (mean difference: −3.24 DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day, 95% confidence interval (CI): −4.96, −1.53, p < 0.001). The intervention group also had a smaller number of long-term users. The adjusted absolute difference overall was −0.36 (95% CI: −0.55, −0.16, p > 0.001), and the adjusted absolute difference in long-term users over age 65 years was −0.87 (95% CI: −1.44, −0.30, p = 0.003). A key limitation of this clustered design clinical trial is the imbalance of some baseline characteristics. The control groups have a higher rate of baseline BZD prescription, and more GPs in the intervention group were women, GPs with a doctorate degree, and trainers of GP residents. Conclusions A multicomponent intervention that targeted GPs and included educational meeting, feedback about BZD prescriptions, and a support web page led to a statistically significant reduction of BZD prescriptions and fewer long-term users. Although the effect size was small, the high prevalence of BZD use in the general population suggests that large-scale implementation of this intervention could have positive effects on the health of many patients. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN28272199.","PeriodicalId":20368,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of a multicomponent intervention consisting of education and feedback to reduce benzodiazepine prescriptions by general practitioners: The BENZORED hybrid type 1 cluster randomized controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"C. Vicens, A. Leiva, F. Bejarano, Ermengol Sempere-Verdú, R. M. Rodríguez-Rincón, F. Fiol, M. Mengual, Asunción Ajenjo-Navarro, F. Do Pazo, C. Mateu, S. Folch, Santiago Alegret, J. Coll, M. Martín-rabadan, I. Socias\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pmed.1003983\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Current benzodiazepine (BZD) prescription guidelines recommend short-term use to minimize the risk of dependence, cognitive impairment, and falls and fractures. However, many clinicians overprescribe BZDs and chronic use by patients is common. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions delivered by general practitioners (GPs) on reducing prescriptions and long-term use of BZDs. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention for GPs that seeks to reduce BZD prescriptions and the prevalence of long-term users. Methods and findings We conducted a multicenter two-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial in 3 health districts in Spain (primary health centers [PHCs] in Balearic Islands, Catalonia, and Valencian Community) from September 2016 to May 2018. The 81 PHCs were randomly allocated to the intervention group (n = 41; 372 GPs) or the control group (n = 40; 377 GPs). GPs were not blinded to the allocation; however, pharmacists, researchers, and trial statisticians were blinded to the allocation arm. The intervention consisted of a workshop about the appropriate prescribing of BZDs and tapering-off long-term BZD use using a tailored stepped dose reduction with monthly BZD prescription feedback and access to a support web page. The primary outcome, based on 700 GPs (351 in the control group and 349 in the intervention group), compared changes in BZD prescriptions in defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1,000 inhabitants per day after 12 months. The 2 secondary outcomes were the proportion of long-term users (≥6 months) and the proportion of long-term users over age 65 years. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used to assess all clinical outcomes. Forty-nine GPs (21 intervention group and 28 control group) were lost to follow-up. However, all GPs were included in the ITT analysis. After 12 months, there were a statistically significant decline in total BZD prescription in the intervention group compared to the control group (mean difference: −3.24 DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day, 95% confidence interval (CI): −4.96, −1.53, p < 0.001). The intervention group also had a smaller number of long-term users. The adjusted absolute difference overall was −0.36 (95% CI: −0.55, −0.16, p > 0.001), and the adjusted absolute difference in long-term users over age 65 years was −0.87 (95% CI: −1.44, −0.30, p = 0.003). A key limitation of this clustered design clinical trial is the imbalance of some baseline characteristics. The control groups have a higher rate of baseline BZD prescription, and more GPs in the intervention group were women, GPs with a doctorate degree, and trainers of GP residents. Conclusions A multicomponent intervention that targeted GPs and included educational meeting, feedback about BZD prescriptions, and a support web page led to a statistically significant reduction of BZD prescriptions and fewer long-term users. Although the effect size was small, the high prevalence of BZD use in the general population suggests that large-scale implementation of this intervention could have positive effects on the health of many patients. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN28272199.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20368,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003983\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003983","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

当前苯二氮卓类药物(BZD)处方指南建议短期使用,以尽量减少依赖、认知障碍、跌倒和骨折的风险。然而,许多临床医生过度开bzd,患者长期使用是很常见的。关于全科医生(gp)提供的干预措施在减少处方和长期使用BZDs方面的有效性的证据有限。我们的目的是评估多组分干预对全科医生的有效性,以减少BZD处方和长期使用者的患病率。2016年9月至2018年5月,我们在西班牙3个卫生区(巴利阿里群岛、加泰罗尼亚和巴伦西亚社区的初级卫生中心[PHCs])开展了一项多中心、双组、整群随机对照试验。81例PHCs随机分配到干预组(n = 41;372 gp)或对照组(n = 40;377年GPs)。普通医生并没有对分配视而不见;然而,药剂师、研究人员和试验统计人员对分配组是盲目的。干预包括一个关于BZD的适当处方和逐步减少长期BZD使用的研讨会,使用量身定制的阶梯式剂量减少,每月BZD处方反馈和访问支持网页。主要结果基于700名全科医生(对照组351名,干预组349名),比较了12个月后每1000名居民每日限定日剂量(DDDs) BZD处方的变化。2个次要指标为长期服用者(≥6个月)的比例和65岁以上长期服用者的比例。意向治疗(ITT)分析用于评估所有临床结果。49例全科医生失访,其中干预组21例,对照组28例。然而,所有全科医生都被纳入ITT分析。12个月后,干预组BZD处方总量与对照组相比有统计学意义的下降(平均差异:- 3.24 DDDs / 1000居民/天,95%可信区间(CI): - 4.96, - 1.53, p < 0.001)。干预组也有较少的长期使用者。总体调整后的绝对差异为- 0.36 (95% CI: - 0.55, - 0.16, p < 0.001), 65岁以上长期使用者的调整后绝对差异为- 0.87 (95% CI: - 1.44, - 0.30, p = 0.003)。这种聚类设计临床试验的一个关键限制是一些基线特征的不平衡。对照组的BZD基线处方率较高,干预组的全科医生多为女性、博士学位的全科医生和全科住院医师培训师。结论针对全科医生的多组分干预,包括教育会议、BZD处方反馈和支持网页,可以显著减少BZD处方和减少长期使用者。虽然效应量很小,但BZD在普通人群中的高流行率表明,大规模实施这种干预措施可能对许多患者的健康产生积极影响。试验注册号ISRCTN28272199。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of a multicomponent intervention consisting of education and feedback to reduce benzodiazepine prescriptions by general practitioners: The BENZORED hybrid type 1 cluster randomized controlled trial
Background Current benzodiazepine (BZD) prescription guidelines recommend short-term use to minimize the risk of dependence, cognitive impairment, and falls and fractures. However, many clinicians overprescribe BZDs and chronic use by patients is common. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions delivered by general practitioners (GPs) on reducing prescriptions and long-term use of BZDs. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention for GPs that seeks to reduce BZD prescriptions and the prevalence of long-term users. Methods and findings We conducted a multicenter two-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial in 3 health districts in Spain (primary health centers [PHCs] in Balearic Islands, Catalonia, and Valencian Community) from September 2016 to May 2018. The 81 PHCs were randomly allocated to the intervention group (n = 41; 372 GPs) or the control group (n = 40; 377 GPs). GPs were not blinded to the allocation; however, pharmacists, researchers, and trial statisticians were blinded to the allocation arm. The intervention consisted of a workshop about the appropriate prescribing of BZDs and tapering-off long-term BZD use using a tailored stepped dose reduction with monthly BZD prescription feedback and access to a support web page. The primary outcome, based on 700 GPs (351 in the control group and 349 in the intervention group), compared changes in BZD prescriptions in defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1,000 inhabitants per day after 12 months. The 2 secondary outcomes were the proportion of long-term users (≥6 months) and the proportion of long-term users over age 65 years. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used to assess all clinical outcomes. Forty-nine GPs (21 intervention group and 28 control group) were lost to follow-up. However, all GPs were included in the ITT analysis. After 12 months, there were a statistically significant decline in total BZD prescription in the intervention group compared to the control group (mean difference: −3.24 DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day, 95% confidence interval (CI): −4.96, −1.53, p < 0.001). The intervention group also had a smaller number of long-term users. The adjusted absolute difference overall was −0.36 (95% CI: −0.55, −0.16, p > 0.001), and the adjusted absolute difference in long-term users over age 65 years was −0.87 (95% CI: −1.44, −0.30, p = 0.003). A key limitation of this clustered design clinical trial is the imbalance of some baseline characteristics. The control groups have a higher rate of baseline BZD prescription, and more GPs in the intervention group were women, GPs with a doctorate degree, and trainers of GP residents. Conclusions A multicomponent intervention that targeted GPs and included educational meeting, feedback about BZD prescriptions, and a support web page led to a statistically significant reduction of BZD prescriptions and fewer long-term users. Although the effect size was small, the high prevalence of BZD use in the general population suggests that large-scale implementation of this intervention could have positive effects on the health of many patients. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN28272199.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
21.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine aims to be a leading platform for research and analysis on the global health challenges faced by humanity. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedicine, the environment, society, and politics, that affect the well-being of individuals worldwide. It particularly highlights studies that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or our understanding of disease mechanisms, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes in diverse settings. Unwavering in its commitment to ethical standards, PLOS Medicine ensures integrity in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and transparently disclosing any conflicts of interest during the reporting, peer review, and publication processes. The journal promotes transparency by providing visibility into the review and publication procedures. It also encourages data sharing and the reuse of published work. Author rights are upheld, allowing them to retain copyright. Furthermore, PLOS Medicine strongly supports Open Access publishing, making research articles freely available to all without restrictions, facilitating widespread dissemination of knowledge. The journal does not endorse drug or medical device advertising and refrains from exclusive sales of reprints to avoid conflicts of interest.
期刊最新文献
Impact on beer sales of removing the pint serving size: An A-B-A reversal trial in pubs, bars, and restaurants in England Behavioral risk factors and socioeconomic inequalities in ischemic heart disease mortality in the United States: A causal mediation analysis using record linkage data Is C-reactive protein sufficient to guide antimicrobial therapy for lower respiratory tract infections among children? Results from a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in Uganda. The cost-effectiveness of preventing, diagnosing, and treating postpartum haemorrhage: A systematic review of economic evaluations Evaluation of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19 (COPCOV): A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1