Economic Analysis of a Randomized Trial of Academic Detailing Interventions to Improve Use of Antihypertensive Medications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors estimated the costs and cost savings of implementing a program of mailed practice guidelines and single-visit individual and group academic detailing interventions in a randomized controlled trial to improve the use of antihypertensive medications. Analyses took the perspective of the payer. The total costs of the mailed guideline, group detailing, and individual detailing interventions were estimated at 1000 dollars, 5500 dollars, and 7200 dollars, respectively, corresponding to changes in the average daily per person drug costs of -0.0558 dollars (95% confidence interval, -0.1365 dollars to 0.0250 dollars) in the individual detailing intervention and -0.0001 dollars (95% confidence interval, -0.0803 dollars to 0.0801 dollars) in the group detailing intervention, compared with the mailed intervention. For all patients with incident hypertension in the individual detailing arm, the annual total drug cost savings were estimated at 21,711 dollars (95% confidence interval, 53,131 dollars savings to 9709 dollars cost increase). Information on costs of academic detailing could assist with health plan decision making in developing interventions to improve prescribing.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".