Teaching Physicians Geriatric Principles: A Randomized Control Trial on Academic Detailing Plus Printed Materials Versus Printed Materials Only
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared the effectiveness of academic detailing with printed materials, versus printed materials only, on promoting geriatric knowledge among physicians. METHODS: 31 physicians were randomly assigned to receive academic detailing plus printed materials (group 1 intervention, n = 16), or printed materials alone (group 2 control, n = 15), on 5 geriatric topics identified from a needs assessment survey. Two participants withdrew from group 2, leaving 13 in the control group. Both groups received printed educational materials between baseline and time 1, and at time 2. Only group 1 received an additional 15-minute, one-on-one education session with a geriatrician at time 2. The primary endpoint was knowledge retention, measured by the numeric score of a 5-item questionnaire (range 0 to 5), comprised of items from the Geriatrics Knowledge Test. Knowledge retention was measured at baseline, 1 week (time 1), and on average 29 weeks later (time 2). RESULTS: Most participants were postgraduate trainees. The mean knowledge score in all participants decreased from 3.6 +/- 1.2 at baseline to 3.1 +/- 1.2 at time 1 (p =.006). 19 participants (9 in group 1 and 10 in group 2) completed the knowledge questionnaire at time 2. At baseline, group 1 scored lower than group 2 (3.4 +/- 1.3 versus 3.8 +/- 1.1, p =.39); whereas at time 2, group 1 scored significantly higher than group 2 (4.7 +/- 0.7 versus 3.9 +/- 0.7, p =.034). Academic detailing plus printed materials produced higher mean score change from baseline (1.1 +/- 1.3) than printed materials alone (0.0 +/- 1.1, p =.053). CONCLUSIONS: Academic detailing plus printed materials improved knowledge retention among physicians, whereas printed materials only did not.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".