Teleconferenced educational detailing: Diabetes education for primary care physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Formal didactic continuing medical education (CME) is relatively ineffective for changing physician behaviour. Diabetes mellitus is an increasingly prevalent disease, and interventions to improve adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are needed. METHODS: A stratified, cluster-randomized, controlled trial design was used to evaluate the effects of a teleconferenced educational detailing (TED) CME on glycemic control (hemoglobin [Hb] A1c) and family physician adherence to national diabetes guidelines. TED employed sequential, small-group, case-based education using CPGs delivered by a diabetes specialist. Medical record audit data from baseline through the end of a 12-month postintervention period were compared for the control and intervention groups. Satisfaction with the intervention was evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-one physicians provided 660 medical records. The intervention did not affect mean Hb A1c levels but did significantly (p = .04) alter the distribution of patients by category of glycemic control, with fewer in the intervention group in inadequate control (15.8% versus 23.9%). More patients took insulin (alone or with oral agents) in the intervention group (21.2% versus 12.0%, p = .03), and more took oral agents only in the control group (89.0% versus 82.9%, p = .005). More patients in the intervention group had documentation of body mass index (7.8% versus 1.9%, p < .02), eye exam (12.1% versus 5.1%, p = .02), and treatment plan (43.5% versus 23.6%, p = .01) and used a flow sheet (14.6% versus 7.7%, p < .03). Although there was general satisfaction with the teleconferencing format, specialist educators found the format more challenging than the family physicians. DISCUSSION: CME delivered by teleconference was feasible, well attended, well received by participants, and improved some key diabetes management practices and outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".