Table 3. Characteristics of included studies on other interventions
Author,year, countryDesign N Duration, monthsPractitioners involvedDetails of interventionOutcomes
Leyva et al, 2013UK20 QIP[Abstract]133Physician, rheumatology clinicPatient goalsetting; continuous reinforcement via weekly phone calls10/13 reduced SUA, 80% reached SU goal ≤6 mg/dl
Moffat and McNab, 2015US23 QIP12612GPs and admin staffPractice-based audit of SU levels, ULT titration, lifestyle advice last 12 months. Target SU <6 mg/dl112 (84%) SU level checked; 79 (51%) reached SU <6 mg/dl in 6 months
Fields, et al 2017US15 Observ4012Nurse and pharmacist
  1. Gout patient self-management Knowledge exam

  2. Nurse-taught curriculum

  3. Monthly phone calls from pharmacists

84.6% reported increased knowledge; 81% found nurse education useful, 50% found pharmacist phone calls useful
Callear et al, 2017UK30 QIP11512Primary care teamImprovement cycles with patient education and increased SU monitoringReduced SU (0.37 to 0.3 mg/dl); 20% reduction in gout flares; improved compliance 63% to 91%
Bulbin et al, 2018US13 QIP8196Primary care providers and rheumatology staffTwo practices: one intervention, one usual care. Electronic tool to identify undertreated patients, assist telephone encounters, reminders, request tests, provide adviceIntervention improved 54% to 61%; patients monitored improved from intervention patients treated 56% to 79%; reached SU target ≤6.0 mg/dl 27% to 43%. Control no change
Lawrence et a l, 2019A/NZ29 Open evaluation8873Gout educators and pharmacist monitoringFree blister-pack medication, recall for SUA, result communicated to prescribers44% completed programme and reached SU target ≤0.36 mmol/l
Stamp et al, 2019A/NZ33 Open evaluation171Pre-interven audit 24; post interven 12Rheumatologist, nurse specialists, practice nursesMultidisciplinary education; structured approach to treating gout flares and ULT; screening; telephone consultations available; electronic prompts; recall system; gout treatment templateReduction in not reaching target SU 52/133 (39%) cf 43/67 (64%) in 2012 P < 0.001. Increase in average SU test 2 (0–10) cf 1 (0–3) in 2012 P < 0.001.
  • Admin = administrative staff. A/NZ = Aotearoa/New Zealand. Cf = Compare. Interven = intervention. Observ = observational. QIP = quality improvement project. RCT = randomised controlled trial. SU = serum urate. ULT = urate lowering therapy.