A qualitative study of interphysician telephone consultations: Extending the opinion leader theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It has been suggested that the use of opinion leaders in the dissemination of information may be an effective method of changing clinical practice. Recent reviews on this topic, however, have found mixed results and have concluded that further research is needed to explore the circumstances that effectively utilize opinion leaders. We studied the interphysician telephone consultation, a situation in medical practice in which we see opinion leaders at work, to generate a grounded theory of opinion leader activity. METHODS: Data were collected and triangulated among 3 sources: documentation of 129 telephone consultations received, 51 hours of field observations of consultants, and in-depth interviews of 12 callers and 12 consultants. Analysis was performed using grounded theory methods. RESULTS: A rich description of the context and mechanisms of opinion leader activity emerged. The results describe that opinion leader activity is effective in an informal context in which the practicing physician initiates the exchange. Valuable elements of opinion leader activity that emerged included the provision of a personal touch, reassurance, and advice that blends clinical experience with published evidence. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that key to effective opinion leader activity is an informal practitioner-initiated context. Formal didactic sessions led by opinion leaders, therefore, may not be an effective format. In addition to evidence-based medicine, practicing physicians value "experience-based medicine" and the personal touch and reassurance that contact with an opinion leader can provide. Using opinion leaders as a means of balancing these 2 paradigms may be a useful model for continuing medical education in this domain.
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 | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".