Effect of Feedback Letters to Physicians and Pharmacists on the Appropriate Use of Medication in the Treatment of Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suboptimal medication treatment of asthma has been reported. More specifically, short-acting beta 2-agonists are overused, while inhaled corticosteroids are underused. This can be related in part to poor adherence by patients to the prescribed regimen and to professionals' failure to comply with practice guidelines. Feedback seems to have an effect on professional practices related to medication use. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of feedback letters to physicians and pharmacists on their patients' appropriate use of asthma medication. METHODS: Two randomized trials were set up in the province of Quebec, Canada: one with physicians and another with pharmacists. A sample of voluntary physicians and pharmacists was randomly assigned to either the experimental group or to the control group. Those in the experimental groups received three consecutive feedback letters over a 9-month period summarizing the asthma medications acquired by their patients over the preceding year. The feedback focused on short-acting beta 2-agonists, long-acting beta 2-agonists and antileukotrienes and provided information on compliance with five appropriate-use criteria. Pharmacists received aggregate profiles and individual profiles with patients' names, while most physicians received aggregate profiles for all their eligible patients. Each mailing also included a pamphlet that summarized practice guidelines on asthma treatment. RESULTS: Seventy-one physicians and 60 pharmacists participated in the study. Physicians who received the feedback letters did not differ from those in the control group in terms of their proportion of prescriptions compliant with the criteria, either before the feedback or after it (p > 0.05). The before-after difference was also similar between groups. The same was true for pharmacists. However, although the before-after difference for criteria 1 (frequency of use of short-acting beta 2-agonists) and 2 (frequency of use of long-acting beta 2-agonists) did not reach the usual statistical significance threshold of 0.05, the p value was under 0.10. CONCLUSIONS: As designed in this study, feedback provided to physicians did not improve the appropriate use of asthma medication. However, feedback to pharmacists is promising, especially when including patients' names so that pharmacists can intervene more specifically.
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 | 0.000 | 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".