Empowering patients or general practitioners? A randomised clinical trial to improve quality in reproductive health care in Belgium

References

• Little P, Griffin S, Kelly J, et al Effect of educational leaflets and questions on knowledge of contraception in women taking the combined contraceptive pill: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1998;316:1948–1952.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bromham DR, Cartmill RSV. Knowledge and use of secondary contraception among patients requesting termination of pregnancy. BMJ 1993;306:556–557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson S, Taylor R. Women's knowledge about contraception. Br J Fam Plann 1992;18:3–5.
   Google Scholar
• Churchill D, Allen J, Pringle M, et al Consultation patterns and provision of contraception in general practice before teenage pregnancy: Case-control study. BMJ 2000;321:486–489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peremans L, Hermann I AD, Van Royen P, Denekens J. Contraceptive knowledge and expectations by adolescents: An explanation by focus groups. Patient Educ Counsel 2000;40:133–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson LD, Mellanby A, Donovan C, et al Teenagers' view on general practice consultations and other medical advice. Fam Pract 2000;17:156–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rethans JJ, Westin S, Hays R. Methods for quality assessment in general practice. Fam Pract 1996;13:468–476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrows H. An overview of the uses of standardized patients for teaching and evaluating clinical skills. Acad Med 1993;68:443–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Vleuten C, Swanson D. Assessment of clinical skills with standardized patients: state of the art. Teach Learn Med 1990;2:1958–1976.
   Google Scholar
• Norman G, Tugwell P, Feightner J. A comparison of resident performance on real and simulated patients. J Med Educ 1982;57:708–715.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hermida J, Nicholas DD, Blumenfeld SN. Comparative validity of three methods for assessment of the quality of primary health care. Int J Qual Health Care 1999;11:429–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peremans L, Rethans JJ, Verhoeven V, et al Adolescents demanding a good contraceptive: A study with standardised patients in general practices. Contraception 2005;71:421–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peremans L, Michels J, Van Royen P, Van Peer W. Aanbeveling voor goede medische praktijkvoering: Orale anticonceptie. [Recommendation for good medical practice: Oral contraception.] Huisarts Nu 2002;31:163–182. (In Dutch.).
   Google Scholar
• Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, et al Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston ME, Langton KB, Haynes RB, Mathieu A. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on clinician performance and patient outcome. Ann Int Med 1994;120:135–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes. JAMA 1998;280:1339–1346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: Effective implementation of change in patient's care. Lancet 2003;362:1225–1230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang D, Peleg M, Samson WT, et al Representation primitives, process models and patient data in computer-interpretable clinical practice guidelines: A literature review of guideline representation models. Int J Med Informatics 2002;68:59–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton R, Dovey S, Harvey E, Freemantle N. Computer support for determining drug dose: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 1999;318:984–990.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware JE. Expanding patient involvement in health care: effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med 1985;102:520–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Ottawa: Canadian Public Health Association, 1986.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation Alma Ata Declaration 1978. Kopenhagen. Accessed 27 November 2009 from: http://www.who.int/hpr/NPH/docs/declaration_almaata.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Edwards M, Davies M, Edwards A. What are the external influences on information exchange and shared decision-making in healthcare consultations: A meta-synthesis of the literature. Patient Educ Counseling 2009;75:37–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wind AL, Van Dalen J, Muitjens AMM, Rethans JJ. Assessing simulated patients in an educational setting: the MaSP (Maastricht Assessment of Simulated Patients). Med Educ 2004;38:39–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rethans JJ, Drop R, Sturmans F, van der Vleuten C. A method for introducing standardized (simulated) patients into general practice consultations. Br J Gen Pract 1991;41:94–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Free C, Lee RM, Ogden J. Young women's accounts of factors influencing their use and non-use of emergency contraception: In-depth interview study. BMJ 2002;325:1393–1397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson R, Schwarz E, Freedman L. Advance supply of emergency contraception: Effect on use and usual contraception – A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:8–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimshaw J, Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: A systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993;342:1317–1322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryan C, Boren SA. The use and effectiveness of electronic clinical decision support tools in the ambulatory/primary care setting: a systematic review of the literature. Inform Prim Care 2008;16:79–91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith GD, Mertens T. What's said and what's done: The reality of sexually transmitted disease consultations. Public Health 2004;118:96–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rousseau N, McColl E, Newton J, et al Practice based longitudinal, qualitative interview study of computerised evidence based guidelines in primary care. BMJ 2003;326:314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eccles M, McColl E, Steen N, et al Effect of computerised evidence based guidelines on management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care: Cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2002;325:941.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts KJ. Patient empowerment in the United States: A critical commentary. Health Expectations 1999;2:82–92.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chewning B, Mosena P, Wilson D, et al Evaluation of a computerized decision aid for adolescent patients. Patient Educ Counseling 1999;38:227–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins C, Harvey I, Carthy P, et al Attitudes and behaviour of general practitioners and their prescribing costs: A national cross sectional survey. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:29–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muijers PEM, Grol R, Sijbrandij J, et al Differences in prescribing between GPs. Impact of the cooperation with pharmacists and impact of visits from pharmaceutical industry representatives. Fam Pract 2005;22:624–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar