Ward 1996.
Methods | RCT (incomplete block design, randomised by provider)
Randomisation concealment: NOT CLEAR
Follow up:
‐ providers: DONE
‐ patients: N/A
Blinded assessment: NOT DONE
Baseline: NOT CLEAR
Reliable outcomes: NOT CLEAR
Protection against contamination: DONE no unit of analysis error |
|
Participants | General practitioners in the Perth metropolitan region (Australia) who participated in a previous study (Kamien 1994). In that study 42% of the GPs approached (393 of 600 GPs in the district) finally recruited patients into the study; the next five consenting patients with type 2 diabetes that consulted the GP after he had completed a questionnaire. Patients that were recruited in the previous study were also used in this study. (Type 2 diabetes). 139 of 160 providers asked to participate in this study, were included providers‐ 139 patients ‐ 386 practices‐ ? | |
Interventions | Intervention group:
Professional intervention (distribution of educational materials + educational outreach visits (interview by academic GP or nurse) + audit and feedback) Control group: received recommended standard of Adequate Competent Care score and postal feedback Length of intervention: 8 months |
|
Outcomes | PROCESS:
History recorded
Duration of known diabetes
Dietary inquiry and advice
Alcohol intake inquiry and advice
Exercise inquiry and advice
Smoking inquiry and advice
Impotence/vaginitis inquiry and advice Annual physical examination Blood pressure Eye examination (or referral to ophthalmologist) Body weight Feet examined ‐Pulses ‐Sensation ‐Nails ‐Reflexes HbA1 Blood glucose Cholesterol Triglyceride Creatinine Urinalysis Glucose Protein Nitrite Modified ACC score PATIENT: NONE |
|
Notes | A local recommended standard was formulated based on information obtained in a previous study | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Allocation concealment? | Unclear risk | B ‐ Unclear |