Program Evaluation
Conditions
Keywords
Mixed Methods, Cardiovascular Health, Implementation Evaluation, Cardiovascular Prevention Screening
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to evaluate approximately eight grants that will test interventions to improve cardiovascular disease prevention. The investigators will collect and analyze qualitative data to identify the most effective combinations of intervention strategies. The investigators will observe grantees and selected practices to understand why and how those combinations are effective. The investigators will also gather data from the grantees to assess how effective the interventions are.
Detailed description
The purpose of this study is to evaluate approximately eight different R18 grants that will test practice change interventions to improve cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention screening. The investigators will collect and analyze quantitative data (context, process, and outcomes) to identify the most effective combinations of intervention strategies for various practice types in relation to practice structure, context, and organizational characteristics associated with change in outcomes. The investigators will collect qualitative data (observation, interviews, online diaries) from grantees and selected practices to understand why and how those combinations are effective. The investigators will also gather documents and de-identified quantitative data from grantees. Evidence clearly shows that many people do not receive guideline-concordant health care; this is true even for low cost treatments such as Aspirin prescribing, Blood pressure and Cholesterol control and Smoking cessation (the ABCS) known to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). In hospitals and integrated care systems with substantial resources, large quality improvement campaigns have been shown to increase adherence to guidelines by creating communities of learning that change behavior on a large scale. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) are partnering to launch a campaign to promote the improvement of guideline-based CVD preventive care in small primary care practices with limited resources and experience with quality improvement (Implementation RFA-HS-14-008). The practices for each of these R18 grants will be in a contiguous geographic region. This study will evaluate each of these R18 implementation grants. The investigators' strategy is to conduct a prospective observational analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of the R18s ABCS quality improvement initiatives. To do this, the investigators will collect and analyze qualitative data to identify the most effective combinations of intervention strategies for various practice types, contexts, and organizational characteristics, and to understand why and how those combinations are effective. The investigators will also gather de-identified quantitative data that the R18s collected.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALESCALATES
The investigators collect and analyze qualitative data to identify the most effective combinations of intervention strategies for various practice types, contexts, and organizational characteristics, and to understand why and how those combinations are effective. The investigators also gather de-identified quantitative data that the R18s collected.
Sponsors
University of Texas
Rutgers University
HealthPartners Institute
University of Michigan
Case Western Reserve University
Oregon Health and Science University
Study design
Observational model
CASE_ONLY
Time perspective
CROSS_SECTIONAL
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 89 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* All R18 grant awardees are included in the study.
Exclusion criteria
* N/A
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage of participants who were screened for tobacco use and received cessation counseling intervention if identified as a tobacco user. | Quarterly for 4 years | Patients 18years and older as of the first day of the measurement period with at least two visits during the measurement period |
| Percentage of participants with AMI, coronary artery bypass graft, PCI or IVD, and who had documentation of used of aspirin or another antithrombotic during the measurement period. | Quarterly for 4 years | Acute myocardial infarction (AMI), ischemic vascular disease (IVD), percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) |
| Percentage of participants with diagnosis of hypertension and whose blood pressure was adequately controlled (<140/90 mmHg) during the measurement period. | Quarterly for 4 years | Patients 18years and older and 85years or younger with at least one face to face visit and active diagnosis of essential hypertension at any time before the first date of month 7 of the measurement period and who did not (i) have an active diagnosis of pregnancy at any time during the measurement period; or (ii) have evidence of end stage renal disease, dialysis, or renal transplant before or during the measurement period |
| Percentage of participants considered at high risk of cardiovascular events who were prescribed or were on a statin therapy during the measurement period. | Quarterly for 4 years | Patients 21 and older with at least one face to face visit who have an active diagnosis of clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular, LDL-C result \>= 190mg/dL, aged 40 to 75years at the beginning of the measurement period with an active diagnosis of diabetes with the highest LDL-C result of 70 to 189mg/ dL and who (i) did not have adverse effect, allergy or intolerance to statin medication therapy; (ii) did not have an active diagnosis of pregnancy or breastfeeding; (iii) did not receive palliative care; (iv) did not have an active liver disease or hepatic disease of insufficiency; (v) did not have end stage renal disease; or (vi) did not have a most recent LDL-C results\<70mg/dL for patients with a diabetes diagnosis who are not currently receiving statin medication therapy during the current measurement period or any time period. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Practice capacity for change measured by adaptive reserve (AR) | Baseline, immediately after intervention, 6 months post-intervention (4 years maximum) |
| Practice capacity for quality improvement measured by CPCQ | Baseline, immediately after intervention, 6 months post-intervention (4 years maximum) |
Outcome results
None listed