Do decision support systems influence variation in prescription?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Translating scientific evidence into daily practice is problematic. All kinds of intervention strategies, using educational and/or directive strategies, aimed at modifying behavior, have evolved, but have been found only partially successful. In this article the focus is on (computerized) decision support systems (DSSs). DSSs intervene in physicians' daily routine, as opposed to interventions that aim at influencing knowledge in order to change behavior. We examined whether general practitioners (GPs) are prescribing in accordance with the advice given by the DSS and whether there is less variation in prescription when the DSS is used.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were used from the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice (DNSGP2), collected in 2001. A total of 82 diagnoses, 749811 contacts, 133 physicians, and 85 practices was included in the analyses. GPs using the DSS daily were compared to GPs who do not use the DSS. Multilevel analyses were used to analyse the data. Two outcome measures were chosen: whether prescription was in accordance with the advice of the DSS or not, and a measure of concentration, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GPs who use the DSS daily prescribe more according to the advice given in the DSS than GPs who do not use the DSS. Contradictory to our expectation there was no significant difference between the HHIs for both groups: variation in prescription was comparable.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We studied the use of a DSS for drug prescribing in general practice in the Netherlands. The DSS is based on guidelines developed by the Dutch College of General Practitioners and implemented in the Electronic Medical Systems of the GPs. GPs using the DSS more often prescribe in accordance with the advice given in the DSS compared to GPs not using the DSS. This finding, however, did not mean that variation is lower; variation is the same for GPs using and for GPs not using a DSS. Implications of the study are that DSSs can be used to implement guidelines, but that it should not be expected that variation is limited.</p

Barriers to cervical screening participation in high-risk women

Aim Women aged 25–35 years, for whom cervical cancer is most problematic, are least likely to participate in the cervical screening programme. Therefore, identifying barriers to screening participation in this high-risk group is essential. Subject and methods A sample of 430 women completed an electronic survey of their cervical screening history and answered questions on sociodemographic, behavioural, attitudinal and informational barriers to cervical screening uptake. Logistic regression was used to predict cervical screening non attendance. Results Women with more than 10 sexual partners in their lifetime were more likely, but women from ethnic minorities, less likely to participate in the cervical screening programme. Women unaware of the recommended screening interval were also less likely to be screened, as were women who believed that screening is a test for cancer. Screening was also less likely among women who endorsed the belief that screening in the absence of symptoms is unnecessary. Conclusion These data highlight poor knowledge of the recommended screening interval and purpose of cervical cancer screening in this high-risk group. As such, interventions that target these informational barriers might be most effective for increasing cervical screening uptake in this high-risk group

Effectiveness of A(H1N1)pdm09 Influenza Vaccine in Adults Recommended for Annual Influenza Vaccination

<p>Introduction: Because of variability in published A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates, we conducted a study in the adults belonging to the risk groups to assess the A(H1N1)pdm09 MF59-adjuvanted influenza vaccine effectiveness.</p><p>Methods: VE against influenza and/or pneumonia was assessed in the cohort study (n>25000), and vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza was assessed in a matched case-control study (16 pairs). Odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated by using multivariate logistic regression; vaccine effectiveness was estimated as (1-odds ratio)*100%.</p><p>Results: Vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza and influenza and/or pneumonia was 98% (84-100%) and 33% (2-54%) respectively. The vaccine did not prevent influenza and/or pneumonia in 18-59 years old subjects, and was 49% (16-69%) effective in 60 years and older subjects.</p><p>Conclusions: Even though we cannot entirely rule out that selection bias, residual confounding and/or cross-protection has played a role, the present results indicate that the MF59-adjuvanted A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza vaccine has been effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza and influenza and/or pneumonia, the latter notably in 60 years and older subjects.</p>