MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116452897 · doi:10.1345/aph.1g300

What Interventions Should Pharmacists Employ to Impact Health Practitioners’ Prescribing Practices?

2006· article· en· W2116452897 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaLawson Health Research InstituteLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineMEDLINEInclusion (mineral)OutreachCochrane LibraryAuditFamily medicineSystematic reviewIntervention (counseling)Health careNursingAcademic detailingAlternative medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine which interventions are effective in influencing health practitioners' prescribing practices and explore differences in intervention complexity, setting, sustainability, cost effectiveness, and impact on patient outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search for English-language systematic reviews was performed in MEDLINE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from the date of inception to July 2005 using search terms in accordance with Cochrane recommendations. Included reviews were required to clearly report a search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, literature assessment criteria, and methods for synthesizing or summarizing information and references. Two reviewers independently identified studies for inclusion, assessed study quality, and extracted relevant information. Interventions were classified as consistently effective, inconsistently effective, and effectiveness uncertain. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 4585 titles reviewed met the inclusion criteria. Quality scores ranged from 70% to 100%. Consistently effective interventions included reminders (manual and computerized), audit and feedback, educational outreach visits, organizational strategies, and patient-mediated interventions. Inconsistently effective interventions included computer decision support systems and educational meetings. Multi-faceted interventions were consistently shown to be more efficacious than single interventions. Limited data precluded exploration of the effects of interventions in different settings, sustainability of effect, cost effectiveness, and patient clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that are most effective for impacting prescribing practice include audit and feedback, reminders, educational outreach visits, and patient-mediated interventions. To maximize impact, pharmacists' efforts to positively impact prescribing practices should focus on these intervention types rather than relying primarily on passive didactics or dissemination of guidelines.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.879
GPT teacher head0.783
Teacher spread0.096 · 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