Family physicians' perceptions of academic detailing: a quantitative and qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The efficacy of academic detailing in changing physicians' knowledge and practice has been the subject of many primary research publications and systematic reviews. However, there is little written about the features of academic detailing that physicians find valuable or that affect their use of it. The goal of our project was to explore family physicians' (FPs) perceptions of academic detailing and the factors that affect their use of it.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used 2 methods to collect data, a questionnaire and semi-structured telephone interviews. We mailed questionnaires to all FPs in the Dalhousie Office of Continuing Medical Education database and analyzed responses of non-users and users of academic detailing. After a preliminary analysis of questionnaire data, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 7 FPs who did not use academic detailing and 17 who did use it.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall response rate to the questionnaire was 33% (289/869). Response rate of non-users of academic detailing was 15% (60/393), of users was 48% (229/476). The 3 factors that most encouraged use of academic detailing were the topics selected, the evidence-based approach adopted, and the handout material. The 3 factors that most discouraged the use of academic detailing were spending office time doing CME, scheduling time to see the academic detailer, and having CME provided by a non-physician. Users of academic detailing rated it as being more valuable than other forms of CME. Generally, interview data confirmed questionnaire data with the exception that interview informants did not view having CME provided by a non-physician as a barrier. Interview informants mentioned that the evidence-based approach adopted by academic detailing had led them to more critically evaluate information from other CME programs, pharmaceutical representatives, and journal articles, but not advice from specialists.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Users of academic detailing highly value its educational value and tend to view information from other sources more critically because of its evidence-based approach. Non-users are unlikely to adopt academic detailing despite its high educational value because they find using office time for CME too much of a barrier. To reach these physicians with academic detailing messages, we will have to find other CME formats.</p

Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: A descriptive pilot study

BACKGROUND: Patients increasingly seek more active involvement in health care decisions, but little is known about how to communicate complex risk information to patients. The objective of this study was to elicit patient preferences for the presentation and framing of complex risk information. METHOD: To accomplish this, eight focus group discussions and 15 one-on-one interviews were conducted, where women were presented with risk data in a variety of different graphical formats, metrics, and time horizons. Risk data were based on a hypothetical woman's risk for coronary heart disease, hip fracture, and breast cancer, with and without hormone replacement therapy. Participants' preferences were assessed using likert scales, ranking, and abstractions of focus group discussions. RESULTS: Forty peri- and postmenopausal women were recruited through hospital fliers (n = 25) and a community health fair (n = 15). Mean age was 51 years, 50% were non-Caucasian, and all had completed high school. Bar graphs were preferred by 83% of participants over line graphs, thermometer graphs, 100 representative faces, and survival curves. Lifetime risk estimates were preferred over 10 or 20-year horizons, and absolute risks were preferred over relative risks and number needed to treat. CONCLUSION: Although there are many different formats for presenting and framing risk information, simple bar charts depicting absolute lifetime risk were rated and ranked highest overall for patient preferences for format

Effects of information framing on the intentions of family physicians to prescribe long-term hormone replacement therapy

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the way in which information on benefits and harms of long-term hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is presented influences family physicians' intentions to prescribe this treatment. DESIGN: Family physicians were randomized to receive information on treatment outcomes expressed in relative terms, or as the number needing to be treated (NNT) with HRT to prevent or cause an event. A control group received no information. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians practicing in the Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia. INTERVENTION: Estimates of the impact of long-term HRT on risk of coronary events, hip fractures, and breast cancer were summarized as relative (proportional) decreases or increases in risk, or as NNT. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Intention to prescribe HRT for seven hypothetical patients was measured on Likert scales. Of 389 family physicians working in the Hunter Valley, 243 completed the baseline survey and 215 participated in the randomized trial. Baseline intention to prescribe varied across patients-it was highest in the presence of risk factors for hip fracture, but coexisting risk factors for breast cancer had a strong negative influence. Overall, a larger proportion of subjects receiving information expressed as NNT had reduced intentions, and a smaller proportion had increased intentions to prescribe HRT than those receiving the information expressed in relative terms, or the control group. However, the differences were small and only reached statistical significance for three hypothetical patients. Framing effects were minimal when the hypothetical patient had coexisting risk factors for breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Information framing had some effect on family physicians' intentions to prescribe HRT, but the effects were smaller than those previously reported, and they were modified by the presence of serious potential adverse treatment effect

A Randomized Comparison of Patients' Understanding of Number Needed to Treat and Other Common Risk Reduction Formats

BACKGROUND: Commentators have suggested that patients may understand quantitative information about treatment benefits better when they are presented as numbers needed to treat (NNT) rather than as absolute or relative risk reductions. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether NNT helps patients interpret treatment benefits better than absolute risk reduction (ARR), relative risk reduction (RRR), or a combination of all three of these risk reduction presentations (COMBO). DESIGN: Randomized cross-sectional survey. SETTING: University internal medicine clinic. PATIENTS: Three hundred fifty-seven men and women, ages 50 to 80, who presented for health care. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were given written information about the baseline risk of a hypothetical “disease Y” and were asked (1) to compare the benefits of two drug treatments for disease Y, stating which provided more benefit; and (2) to calculate the effect of one of those drug treatments on a given baseline risk of disease. Risk information was presented to each subject in one of four randomly allocated risk formats: NNT, ARR, RRR, or COMBO. MAIN RESULTS: When asked to state which of two treatments provided more benefit, subjects who received the RRR format responded correctly most often (60% correct vs 43% for COMBO, 42% for ARR, and 30% for NNT, P = .001). Most subjects were unable to calculate the effect of drug treatment on the given baseline risk of disease, although subjects receiving the RRR and ARR formats responded correctly more often (21% and 17% compared to 7% for COMBO and 6% for NNT, P = .004). CONCLUSION: Patients are best able to interpret the benefits of treatment when they are presented in an RRR format with a given baseline risk of disease. ARR also is easily interpreted. NNT is often misinterpreted by patients and should not be used alone to communicate risk to patients

Effects of Information Framing on the Intentions of Family Physicians to Prescribe Long-Term Hormone Replacement Therapy

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the way in which information on benefits and harms of long-term hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is presented influences family physicians' intentions to prescribe this treatment. DESIGN: Family physicians were randomized to receive information on treatment outcomes expressed in relative terms, or as the number needing to be treated (NNT) with HRT to prevent or cause an event. A control group received no information. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians practicing in the Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia. INTERVENTION: Estimates of the impact of long-term HRT on risk of coronary events, hip fractures, and breast cancer were summarized as relative (proportional) decreases or increases in risk, or as NNT. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Intention to prescribe HRT for seven hypothetical patients was measured on Likert scales. Of 389 family physicians working in the Hunter Valley, 243 completed the baseline survey and 215 participated in the randomized trial. Baseline intention to prescribe varied across patients—it was highest in the presence of risk factors for hip fracture, but coexisting risk factors for breast cancer had a strong negative influence. Overall, a larger proportion of subjects receiving information expressed as NNT had reduced intentions, and a smaller proportion had increased intentions to prescribe HRT than those receiving the information expressed in relative terms, or the control group. However, the differences were small and only reached statistical significance for three hypothetical patients. Framing effects were minimal when the hypothetical patient had coexisting risk factors for breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Information framing had some effect on family physicians' intentions to prescribe HRT, but the effects were smaller than those previously reported, and they were modified by the presence of serious potential adverse treatment effects

Physician and Patient Factors Associated with Ordering a Colon Evaluation After a Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test

OBJECTIVE: Successful colorectal cancer screening relies in part on physicians ordering a complete diagnostic evaluation of the colon (CDE) with colonoscopy or barium enema plus sigmoidoscopy after a positive screening fecal occult blood test (FOBT). DESIGN: We surveyed primary care physicians about colorectal cancer screening practices, beliefs, and intentions. At least 1 physician responded in 318 of 413 (77%) primary care practices that were affiliated with a managed care organization offering a mailed FOBT program for patients aged ≥50 years. Of these 318 practices, 212 (67%) had 602 FOBT+ patients from August through November 1998. We studied 184 (87%) of these 212 practices with 490 FOBT+ patients after excluding those judged ineligible for a CDE or without demographic data. Three months after notification of the FOBT+ result, physicians were asked on audit forms if they had ordered CDEs for study patients. Patient- and physician-predictors of ordering CDEs were identified using logistic regression. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A CDE was ordered for only 69.5% of 490 FOBT+ patients. After adjustment, women were less likely to have had CDE initiated than men (adjusted odds, 0.66; confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.97). Physician survey responses indicating intermediate or high intention to evaluate a FOBT+ patient with a CDE were associated with nearly 2-fold greater adjusted odds of actually initiating a CDE in this circumstance versus physicians with a low intention. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians often fail to order CDE for FOBT+ patients. A CDE was less likely to be ordered for women and was influenced by physician's beliefs about CDEs

The safety and efficacy of inhaled dry powder mannitol as a bronchial provocation test for airway hyperresponsiveness: a phase 3 comparison study with hypertonic (4.5%) saline

BACKGROUND: Inhaled mannitol is a new bronchial provocation test (BPT) developed to improve portability and standardisation of osmotic challenge testing. Osmotic challenge tests have an advantage over the traditional methods of measuring airway hyperresponsiveness using methacholine as they demonstrate higher specificity to identify asthma and thus the need for treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The safety and the efficacy of mannitol (M) as a BPT to measure airway hyperresponsiveness were compared to hypertonic (4.5%) saline (HS) in people both with and without signs and symptoms of asthma. METHODS: A phase III, multi-centre, open label, operator-blinded, crossover design, randomised trial, with follow-up. Asthmatics and non-asthmatics (6-83 yr) were recruited and 592 subjects completed the study. Mannitol was delivered using a low resistance dry powder inhaler and HS was delivered using an ultrasonic nebuliser. The FEV1 was measured 60 seconds after each dose of mannitol (5,10,20,40,80,160,160,160 mg) and after each exposure to HS (0.5,1.0,2.0,4.0,8.0 minutes). A 15% fall in FEV1 defined a positive test. Adverse events were monitored and diaries kept for 7 days following the tests. RESULTS: Mean pre-test FEV1 (mean +/- SD) was 95.5 +/- 14% predicted. 296 were positive to mannitol (M+) and 322 positive to HS (HS+). A post study physician conducted clinical assessment identified 82.3% asthmatic (44% classified mild) and 17.7% non-asthmatic. Of those M+, 70.1% were taking ICS and of those mannitol negative (M-), 81.1 % were taking ICS. The % fall in FEV1 for mannitol in asthmatics was 21.0% +/- 5.7 and for the non-asthmatics, 5.5% +/- 4.8. The median PD15 M was 148 mg and PD15 HS 6.2 ml. The sensitivity of M to identify HS+ was 80.7% and the specificity 86.7%. The sensitivity of M compared with the clinical assessment was 59.8% and specificity 95.2% and increased to 88.7% and 95.0% respectively when the M- subjects taking ICS were excluded. Cough was common during testing. There were no serious adverse events. The diarised events were similar for mannitol and HS, the most common being headache (17.2%M, 19%HS), pharyngolaryngeal pain (5.1%M, 3%HS), nausea (4.3%M, 3%HS), and cough (2.2%M, 2.4%HS). CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of mannitol was demonstrated in non-asthmatic and clinically diagnosed asthmatic adults and children