Borenstein Jeff, Chiou Chiun-Fang, Henning James M, Wilson Alisa, Hohlbauch Andriana A, Richards Margaret S, Ofman Joshua J, Weingarten Scott R
Department of Medicine and Health Services Research, Cedars-Sinai Health System, and Zynx Health Inc, Los Angeles, Calif 90212, USA.
Am J Manag Care. 2003 Mar;9(3):225-34.
[corrected] Promoting the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice has been advocated as one approach to improving healthcare quality and reducing medical errors. Data describing the effectiveness of different strategies to achieve this goal in real-world settings are limited.
To determine the effectiveness of selected interventions on the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice.
A cross-sectional survey of a random sample of physicians selected from the American Medical Association's Physician Master File.
We examined the perceived effectiveness of 7 strategies (represented by 27 individual interventions) and 5 general approaches for promoting the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice in 1100 practicing physicians. Respondent exposure to interventions was also determined. Regression analyses were performed to identify factors that affected effectiveness ratings. Analysis of variance was used to test the hypothesis of equal mean scores across different comparison groups.
Of 1,100 surveys mailed, 63 (5.7%) were excluded and 431 were completed (response rate = 41.6%). Mean +/- SD effectiveness scores for the 27 individual interventions on a 5-point Likert scale ranged from 2.0 +/- 0.9 (literature received from insurance companies and managed care organizations) to 4.2 +/- 0.8 (one-on-one communication with respected colleagues). Ranges for the 7 strategies were 2.6 +/- 1.0 (patient-mediated interventions) to 3.6 +/- 0.9 (educational meetings) and for the 5 general approaches were 1.98 +/- 0.9 (administrative interventions) to 3.3 +/- 0.8 (provider education). The hypothesis of equal mean effectiveness scores was rejected for all comparisons (P < .001). Frequency of exposure was the only variable to predict effectiveness (P < .001 for all regression models).
From the perspective of practicing physicians, the frequency of exposure to strategies for promoting the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice strongly affects their perceived effectiveness.
[已修正] 倡导将医学证据应用于临床实践是提高医疗质量和减少医疗差错的一种方法。描述在现实环境中实现这一目标的不同策略有效性的数据有限。
确定所选干预措施对将医学证据应用于临床实践的有效性。
对从美国医学协会医师主档案中随机抽取的医师样本进行横断面调查。
我们调查了1100名执业医师对7种策略(由27项个体干预措施代表)和5种促进将医学证据应用于临床实践的一般方法的感知有效性。还确定了受访者接触干预措施的情况。进行回归分析以确定影响有效性评分的因素。使用方差分析来检验不同比较组平均得分相等的假设。
在邮寄的1100份调查问卷中,63份(5.7%)被排除,431份完成(回复率 = 41.6%)。27项个体干预措施在5点李克特量表上的平均±标准差有效性得分范围为2.0±0.9(从保险公司和管理式医疗组织收到的文献)至4.2±0.8(与受尊敬的同事进行一对一交流)。7种策略的范围为2.6±1.0(患者介导的干预措施)至3.6±0.9(教育会议),5种一般方法的范围为1.98±0.9(行政干预措施)至3.3±0.8(提供者教育)。所有比较的平均有效性得分相等的假设均被拒绝(P < .001)。接触频率是预测有效性的唯一变量(所有回归模型的P < .001)。
从执业医师的角度来看,接触促进将医学证据应用于临床实践策略的频率强烈影响他们感知的有效性。