Hetlevik 2000.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods |
Evaluation of effort, process, and patient outcome related to implementation of a computer‐based decision support system Cluster‐RCT (29 clusters with 53 providers), conducted in general practices in 2 Norwegian counties, Norway Two arms: 1. Control (control arm) and 2. Intervention (intervention arm) |
|
| Participants | Control arm N: 535 Intervention arm N: 499 Diabetes type: type 1 and type 2 Mean age: 66.0 ± 16.3 % Male: NR Longest follow‐up: 21 months |
|
| Interventions |
Control arm: None Intervention arm: 1) Audit and feedback 2) Clinician education 3) Clinician reminders 4) Patient education |
|
| Outcomes | 1) HbA1c, mean % (SD) Control arm: pre 8.2 (1.8), post 7.9 (1.6) Intervention arm: pre 8.2 (1.8), post 7.8 (1.6) 2) SBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 151.7 (21.3), post 152.7 (19.0) Intervention arm: pre 152.5 (21.6), post 151.5 (22.1) 3) DBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 85.3 (9.9), post 85.1 (10.1) Intervention arm: pre 84.5 (10.0), post 82.8 (10.6) 4) Smoking cessation, N smokers (%) Control arm: pre NR (NR), post 33 (16) Intervention arm: pre NR (NR), post 49 (19) |
|
| Funding source | NA | |
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Information not available. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Information not available. |
| Provider's baseline characteristics (selection bias) | High risk | Only number and gender of GPs and number of patients reported in text, no P values. |
| Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias) | Unclear risk | At baseline registration (Table 5) 53% of the patients in the intervention group and 55% in the control group (p. 214) were female. Data are also available for age in the table. Not on education. |
| Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias) | Low risk | No baseline differences were discovered for patient outcome measurements (Table 5). CI is reported for difference between the groups and it is not significant. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | 26% lost to follow‐up in intervention group and 24% in control group. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias) | Low risk | Information not available. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Information not available. |
| Risk of contamination (other bias) | Low risk | Information not available. |
| Other bias | Low risk | Information not available. |