An Australian general practice based strategy to improve chronic disease prevention, and its impact on patient reported outcomes: Evaluation of the preventive evidence into practice cluster randomised controlled trial

Mark Fort Harris, Sharon M Parker, John Litt, Mieke van Driel, Grant Russell, Danielle Mazza, Upali W Jayasinghe, Jane Smith, Chris Del Mar, Riki Lane, Elizabeth Denney-Wilson, Preventive Evidence into Practice Partnership Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based chronic disease prevention with a practice-wide population is challenging in primary care.

METHODS: PEP Intervention practices received education, clinical audit and feedback and practice facilitation. Patients (40‑69 years) without chronic disease from trial and control practices were invited to participate in baseline and 12 month follow up questionnaires. Patient-recalled receipt of GP services and referral, and the proportion of patients at risk were compared over time and between intervention and control groups. Mean difference in BMI, diet and physical activity between baseline and follow up were calculated and compared using a paired t-test. Change in the proportion of patients meeting the definition for physical activity diet and weight risk was calculated using McNemar's test and multilevel analysis was used to determine the effect of the intervention on follow-up scores.

RESULTS: Five hundred eighty nine patients completed both questionnaires. No significant changes were found in the proportion of patients reporting a BP, cholesterol, glucose or weight check in either group. Less than one in six at-risk patients reported receiving lifestyle advice or referral at baseline with little change at follow up. More intervention patients reported attempts to improve their diet and reduce weight. Mean score improved for diet in the intervention group (p = 0.04) but self-reported BMI and PA risk did not significantly change in either group. There was no significant change in the proportion of patients who reported being at-risk for diet, PA or weight, and no changes in PA, diet and BMI in multilevel linear regression adjusted for patient age, sex, practice size and state. There was good fidelity to the intervention but practices varied in their capacity to address changes.

CONCLUSIONS: The lack of measurable effect within this trial may be attributable to the complexities around behaviour change and/or system change. This trial highlights some of the challenges in providing suitable chronic disease preventive interventions which are both scalable to whole practice populations and meet the needs of diverse practice structures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808 (29/5/2012). This trial registration is retrospective as our first patient returned their consent on the 21/5/2012. Patient recruitment was ongoing until 31/10/2012.

Original languageEnglish
Article number637
Number of pages14
JournalBMC Health Services Research
Volume17
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 8 Sep 2017

Fingerprint

General Practice
Chronic Disease
Randomized Controlled Trials
Diet
Weights and Measures
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Referral and Consultation
Exercise
Clinical Audit
Multilevel Analysis
New Zealand
Patient Selection
Population
Registries
Life Style
Linear Models
Primary Health Care
Cholesterol
Clinical Trials
Education

Cite this

Harris, Mark Fort ; Parker, Sharon M ; Litt, John ; van Driel, Mieke ; Russell, Grant ; Mazza, Danielle ; Jayasinghe, Upali W ; Smith, Jane ; Del Mar, Chris ; Lane, Riki ; Denney-Wilson, Elizabeth ; Preventive Evidence into Practice Partnership Group. / An Australian general practice based strategy to improve chronic disease prevention, and its impact on patient reported outcomes : Evaluation of the preventive evidence into practice cluster randomised controlled trial. In: BMC Health Services Research. 2017 ; Vol. 17, No. 1.
@article{b799814968e7452cbb1801f6922fbb1a,
title = "An Australian general practice based strategy to improve chronic disease prevention, and its impact on patient reported outcomes: Evaluation of the preventive evidence into practice cluster randomised controlled trial",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based chronic disease prevention with a practice-wide population is challenging in primary care.METHODS: PEP Intervention practices received education, clinical audit and feedback and practice facilitation. Patients (40‑69 years) without chronic disease from trial and control practices were invited to participate in baseline and 12 month follow up questionnaires. Patient-recalled receipt of GP services and referral, and the proportion of patients at risk were compared over time and between intervention and control groups. Mean difference in BMI, diet and physical activity between baseline and follow up were calculated and compared using a paired t-test. Change in the proportion of patients meeting the definition for physical activity diet and weight risk was calculated using McNemar's test and multilevel analysis was used to determine the effect of the intervention on follow-up scores.RESULTS: Five hundred eighty nine patients completed both questionnaires. No significant changes were found in the proportion of patients reporting a BP, cholesterol, glucose or weight check in either group. Less than one in six at-risk patients reported receiving lifestyle advice or referral at baseline with little change at follow up. More intervention patients reported attempts to improve their diet and reduce weight. Mean score improved for diet in the intervention group (p = 0.04) but self-reported BMI and PA risk did not significantly change in either group. There was no significant change in the proportion of patients who reported being at-risk for diet, PA or weight, and no changes in PA, diet and BMI in multilevel linear regression adjusted for patient age, sex, practice size and state. There was good fidelity to the intervention but practices varied in their capacity to address changes.CONCLUSIONS: The lack of measurable effect within this trial may be attributable to the complexities around behaviour change and/or system change. This trial highlights some of the challenges in providing suitable chronic disease preventive interventions which are both scalable to whole practice populations and meet the needs of diverse practice structures.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808 (29/5/2012). This trial registration is retrospective as our first patient returned their consent on the 21/5/2012. Patient recruitment was ongoing until 31/10/2012.",
author = "Harris, {Mark Fort} and Parker, {Sharon M} and John Litt and {van Driel}, Mieke and Grant Russell and Danielle Mazza and Jayasinghe, {Upali W} and Jane Smith and {Del Mar}, Chris and Riki Lane and Elizabeth Denney-Wilson and {Preventive Evidence into Practice Partnership Group}",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1186/s12913-017-2586-4",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
journal = "BMC Health Services Research",
issn = "1472-6963",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

An Australian general practice based strategy to improve chronic disease prevention, and its impact on patient reported outcomes : Evaluation of the preventive evidence into practice cluster randomised controlled trial. / Harris, Mark Fort; Parker, Sharon M; Litt, John; van Driel, Mieke; Russell, Grant; Mazza, Danielle; Jayasinghe, Upali W; Smith, Jane; Del Mar, Chris; Lane, Riki; Denney-Wilson, Elizabeth; Preventive Evidence into Practice Partnership Group.

In: BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 17, No. 1, 637, 08.09.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - An Australian general practice based strategy to improve chronic disease prevention, and its impact on patient reported outcomes

T2 - Evaluation of the preventive evidence into practice cluster randomised controlled trial

AU - Harris, Mark Fort

AU - Parker, Sharon M

AU - Litt, John

AU - van Driel, Mieke

AU - Russell, Grant

AU - Mazza, Danielle

AU - Jayasinghe, Upali W

AU - Smith, Jane

AU - Del Mar, Chris

AU - Lane, Riki

AU - Denney-Wilson, Elizabeth

AU - Preventive Evidence into Practice Partnership Group

PY - 2017/9/8

Y1 - 2017/9/8

N2 - BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based chronic disease prevention with a practice-wide population is challenging in primary care.METHODS: PEP Intervention practices received education, clinical audit and feedback and practice facilitation. Patients (40‑69 years) without chronic disease from trial and control practices were invited to participate in baseline and 12 month follow up questionnaires. Patient-recalled receipt of GP services and referral, and the proportion of patients at risk were compared over time and between intervention and control groups. Mean difference in BMI, diet and physical activity between baseline and follow up were calculated and compared using a paired t-test. Change in the proportion of patients meeting the definition for physical activity diet and weight risk was calculated using McNemar's test and multilevel analysis was used to determine the effect of the intervention on follow-up scores.RESULTS: Five hundred eighty nine patients completed both questionnaires. No significant changes were found in the proportion of patients reporting a BP, cholesterol, glucose or weight check in either group. Less than one in six at-risk patients reported receiving lifestyle advice or referral at baseline with little change at follow up. More intervention patients reported attempts to improve their diet and reduce weight. Mean score improved for diet in the intervention group (p = 0.04) but self-reported BMI and PA risk did not significantly change in either group. There was no significant change in the proportion of patients who reported being at-risk for diet, PA or weight, and no changes in PA, diet and BMI in multilevel linear regression adjusted for patient age, sex, practice size and state. There was good fidelity to the intervention but practices varied in their capacity to address changes.CONCLUSIONS: The lack of measurable effect within this trial may be attributable to the complexities around behaviour change and/or system change. This trial highlights some of the challenges in providing suitable chronic disease preventive interventions which are both scalable to whole practice populations and meet the needs of diverse practice structures.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808 (29/5/2012). This trial registration is retrospective as our first patient returned their consent on the 21/5/2012. Patient recruitment was ongoing until 31/10/2012.

AB - BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based chronic disease prevention with a practice-wide population is challenging in primary care.METHODS: PEP Intervention practices received education, clinical audit and feedback and practice facilitation. Patients (40‑69 years) without chronic disease from trial and control practices were invited to participate in baseline and 12 month follow up questionnaires. Patient-recalled receipt of GP services and referral, and the proportion of patients at risk were compared over time and between intervention and control groups. Mean difference in BMI, diet and physical activity between baseline and follow up were calculated and compared using a paired t-test. Change in the proportion of patients meeting the definition for physical activity diet and weight risk was calculated using McNemar's test and multilevel analysis was used to determine the effect of the intervention on follow-up scores.RESULTS: Five hundred eighty nine patients completed both questionnaires. No significant changes were found in the proportion of patients reporting a BP, cholesterol, glucose or weight check in either group. Less than one in six at-risk patients reported receiving lifestyle advice or referral at baseline with little change at follow up. More intervention patients reported attempts to improve their diet and reduce weight. Mean score improved for diet in the intervention group (p = 0.04) but self-reported BMI and PA risk did not significantly change in either group. There was no significant change in the proportion of patients who reported being at-risk for diet, PA or weight, and no changes in PA, diet and BMI in multilevel linear regression adjusted for patient age, sex, practice size and state. There was good fidelity to the intervention but practices varied in their capacity to address changes.CONCLUSIONS: The lack of measurable effect within this trial may be attributable to the complexities around behaviour change and/or system change. This trial highlights some of the challenges in providing suitable chronic disease preventive interventions which are both scalable to whole practice populations and meet the needs of diverse practice structures.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808 (29/5/2012). This trial registration is retrospective as our first patient returned their consent on the 21/5/2012. Patient recruitment was ongoing until 31/10/2012.

U2 - 10.1186/s12913-017-2586-4

DO - 10.1186/s12913-017-2586-4

M3 - Article

VL - 17

JO - BMC Health Services Research

JF - BMC Health Services Research

SN - 1472-6963

IS - 1

M1 - 637

ER -