MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561536395 · doi:10.18433/j3kk6c

Effectiveness of Academic Detailing to Optimize Medication Prescribing Behaviour of Family Physicians

2013· review· en· W1561536395 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Harpreet Chhina, Vidula Bhole, Charles H. Goldsmith, Wendy A. Hall, Janusz Kaczorowski, Diane Lacaille

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalSimon Fraser UniversityArthritis Research Centre of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterquartile rangeObservational studyMedicineRandomized controlled trialMedical prescriptionMEDLINEIntervention (counseling)Meta-analysisSample size determinationFamily medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To synthesize current knowledge about the effectiveness and the magnitude of the effect, of Academic Detailing (AD), as a stand-alone intervention, at modifying drug prescription behavior of Family Physicians (FPs) in primary care settings. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases of all English language articles between January 1983 and July 2010 was conducted. We hand-searched the bibliographies of articles retrieved from the electronic search to identify additional studies. Inclusion criteria were: full-length articles describing original research; randomized controlled trial (RCT), or observational study design with a control group; studies of AD delivered to FPs; AD as a stand-alone intervention; drug prescription as the target behavior. Data extraction was done independently by two reviewers. Outcomes evaluated were: the difference in relative change in prescription rate between the intervention and control groups; the difference in absolute change in prescription rate between the intervention and control groups; and effect size, calculated as the standardized mean difference. RESULTS: 11 RCTs and 4 observational studies were included. Five RCTS described results showing effectiveness, while 2 RCTs reported a positive effect on some of the target drugs. Two observational studies found AD to be effective, while 2 did not. The median difference in relative change among the studies reviewed was 21% (interquartile range 43.75%) for RCTs, and 9% (interquartile range 8.5%) for observational studies. The median effect size among the studies reviewed was - 0.09 (interquartile range 2.73). CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrates that AD can be effective at optimizing prescription of medications by FPs. Although variable, the magnitude of the effect is moderate in the majority of studies. This systematic review also provides evidence supportive of the use of AD as a strategy to promote evidence based prescription of medications or incorporation of clinical guidelines into clinical practice. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207