ArticleGlobal implementation research and applications2023
A Delphi Study to Prioritize Evidence-Based Strategies for Cardiovascular Disease Care in India.
Article in Global implementation research and applications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing strategies to address persistent and recrudescent trachoma in Ethiopia using the Delphi techniques.International health · 2026Article
- A Randomized Feasibility Trial of a Multicomponent Quality Improvement Strategy for Chronic Care of Cardiovascular Diseases: Findings from the C-QIP Trial in India.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Priority setting for improved leukemia management and research in South Africa: a modified Delphi study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Rationale, Design and Baseline Characteristics of a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Cardiovascular Quality Improvement Strategy in India: The C-QIP Trial.American heart journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Providing quality cardiovascular disease (CVD) care in low resource setting requires understanding of priority and effective interventions. This study aimed to identify and prioritize evidence-based quality improvement strategies for CVD care in India using a modified two-round Delphi process in which, we asked 46 experts (clinicians, researchers, program implementers and policy makers) to rate 25 proven CVD care strategies grouped into: (1) patient support, (2) information communication technology (ICT) for health, (3) group problem solving, (4) training, and (5) multicomponent strategy on a scale of 1 (highest/best)-5 (lowest/worst) on priority, relative advantage, and feasibility. Subsequently, we convened an expert consensus panel of 32 members to deliberate and achieve consensus regarding the prioritized set of strategies for CVD care. The Delphi study found that group problem solving strategies achieved the best score for priority (1.80) but fared poorly on feasibility (2.88). Compared to others, multicomponent strategies were rated favorably across all domains (priority = 1.84, relative advantage = 1.94, and feasibility = 2.40). The ICT for health strategies achieved the worst scores for priority = 2.01, relative advantage = 2.31, and feasibility = 2.85. Training and patient support strategies scored moderately across all domains. The expert panel narrowed the selection of a multicomponent strategy consisting of (1) electronic health records with clinical decision-support system, (2) non-physician health worker facilitated care, (3) patient education materials, (4) text-message based reminders for healthy lifestyle, and (5) audit and feedback report for providers. Future research will evaluate the real-world feasibility and effectiveness of the multicomponent strategy in patients with CVD in a low- and middle-income country setting. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-023-00087-2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.