\title{studies on the effectiveness of practice facilitation interventions}
\description{results from 23 studies on the effectiveness of practice facilitation interventions within the primary care practice setting.}
\bold{author}    \tab \code{character} \tab study author(s) \cr
\bold{score}     \tab \code{numeric}   \tab quality score (0 to 12 scale) \cr
\bold{design}    \tab \code{character} \tab study design (cct = controlled clinical trial, rct = randomized clinical trial, crct = cluster randomized clinical trial) \cr
\bold{alloconc}  \tab \code{numeric}   \tab allocation concealed (0 = no, 1 = yes) \cr
\bold{blind}     \tab \code{numeric}   \tab single- or double-blind study (0 = no, 1 = yes) \cr
\bold{itt}       \tab \code{numeric}   \tab intention to treat analysis (0 = no, 1 = yes) \cr
\bold{fumonths}  \tab \code{numeric}   \tab follow-up months \cr
\bold{retention} \tab \code{numeric}   \tab retention (in percent) \cr
\bold{country}   \tab \code{character} \tab country where study was conducted \cr
\bold{outcomes}  \tab \code{numeric}   \tab number of outcomes assessed \cr
\bold{duration}  \tab \code{numeric}   \tab duration of intervention \cr
\bold{pperf}     \tab \code{numeric}   \tab practices per facilitator \cr
\bold{meetings}  \tab \code{numeric}   \tab (average) number of meetings \cr
\bold{hours}     \tab \code{numeric}   \tab (average) hours per meeting \cr
\bold{tailor}    \tab \code{numeric}   \tab intervention tailored to the context and needs of the practice (0 = no, 1 = yes) \cr
\bold{smd}       \tab \code{numeric}   \tab standardized mean difference \cr
\bold{se}        \tab \code{numeric}   \tab corresponding standard error
baskerville et al. (2012) describe outreach or practice facilitation as a "multifaceted approach that involves skilled individuals who enable others, through a range of intervention components and approaches, to address the challenges in implementing evidence-based care guidelines within the primary care setting". the studies included in this dataset examined the effectiveness of practice facilitation interventions for improving some relevant evidence-based practice behavior. the effect was quantified in terms of a standardized mean difference, comparing the change (from pre- to post-intervention) in the intervention versus the comparison group (or the difference from baseline in prospective cohort studies).
the quality score of 18 given for the study by deitrich et al. (1992) in table 1 of baskerville et al. (2012) appears to be a typo. this was corrected to an 8 in the present dataset.
baskerville, n. b., liddy, c., & hogg, w. (2012). systematic review and meta-analysis of practice facilitation within primary care settings. \emph{annals of family medicine}, \bold{10}(1), 63--74. \verb{https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1312}
res <- rma(smd, sei=se, data=dat, method="dl")
funnel(res, xlab="standardized mean difference", ylim=c(0,0.6))
### rank and regression tests for funnel plot asymmetry
### meta-regression analyses examining various potential moderators
rma(smd, sei=se, mods = ~ score, data=dat, method="dl")
rma(smd, sei=se, mods = ~ alloconc, data=dat, method="dl")
rma(smd, sei=se, mods = ~ blind,    data=dat, method="dl")
rma(smd, sei=se, mods = ~ itt,      data=dat, method="dl")
rma(smd, sei=se, mods = ~ duration, data=dat, method="dl")
rma(smd, sei=se, mods = ~ tailor,   data=dat, method="dl")
rma(smd, sei=se, mods = ~ pperf,    data=dat, method="dl")
rma(smd, sei=se, mods = ~ i(meetings * hours), data=dat, method="dl")
medicine, primary care, standardized mean differences, publication bias, meta-regression