Sadowsky D, Kunzel C
Department of Dentistry, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.
Am J Public Health. 1991 Jul;81(7):923-5. doi: 10.2105/ajph.81.7.923.
A probability sample of American general practitioner dentists, 40 years of age or older, in solo private practice, was the target of two direct mail interventions offered at two different times, to test whether knowledge regarding prophylaxis of patients at risk for infective endocarditis could be improved. Tests of knowledge were responses in a mail questionnaire to clinical vignettes, designed to elicit the content of antibiotic regimens used for patients at risk. The research design enabled detection of (1) the effect of the interventions; (2) the differences in their effect; (3) the attenuation of their effect; and (4) the effect of time. Where baseline knowledge was low, it was improved and did not rapidly disappear. Both mail interventions were equally effective, in most instances, and there was no attenuation of the interventions' effect and no effect of time on the control groups' knowledge over a 4 1/2 month period. The results suggest that it is possible to improve clinicians' knowledge of expert recommendations through direct mail intervention.
以年龄在40岁及以上、独立私人执业的美国普通全科牙医为概率样本,在两个不同时间提供了两次直接邮件干预,以测试是否可以提高对感染性心内膜炎高危患者预防知识的了解。知识测试是通过邮件问卷对临床病例的回答,旨在引出用于高危患者的抗生素治疗方案的内容。该研究设计能够检测:(1)干预措施的效果;(2)其效果的差异;(3)其效果的减弱;以及(4)时间的影响。在基线知识水平较低的情况下,知识得到了提高且没有迅速消失。在大多数情况下,两次邮件干预同样有效,并且在4个半月的时间里,干预措施的效果没有减弱,对对照组的知识也没有时间影响。结果表明,通过直接邮件干预有可能提高临床医生对专家建议的了解。