Dr. Smart, Ms. Monteiro, Dr. Saffore, Ms. Ruseva, Dr. Lee, Dr. Pickard: Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL; and Dr. Fischer: Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, National Resource Center for Academic Detailing, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2020 Fall;40(4):235-241. doi: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000305.
Academic detailing (AD) is an effective, evidence-based education outreach method of promoting clinician behavior change. Detailer feedback is important for program evaluation but is rarely systematically collected. The study's objective was to develop a measure capturing the detailer's perception of the effectiveness of an AD program.
A six-item measure with a five-level scale was initially developed from the literature review and expert panel consultation. Item constructs were usefulness, acceptability, feasibility, relevance, effectiveness of communication, and readiness to change. The measure was piloted, refined, and tested during an opioid-focused AD program that included two visits. The instrument structure was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis, measure reliability was assessed using item-item correlation (rho), corrected item-total correlation, Cronbach alpha (α), and item response theory.
The initial six-item instrument demonstrated unidimensionality. The Cronbach α for the measure was 0.74 (visit 1) and 0.79 (visit 2); one item (relevance) was redundant (α = 0.73 and 0.79 when deleted) and therefore dropped. Items related to usefulness, acceptability, and readiness to change displayed high item-item correlation (rho ≥ 0.50) and contributed the most information and seemed to operate as a single scale (ie, "likelihood to change") based on item response theory analysis. Items related to feasibility and communication were slightly different constructs and should be reported separately.
The five-item detailer assessment of visit effectiveness (the "DAVE") instrument provides a standardized approach to assess AD. Further study of its validity and broader use in other programs and educational outreach activities is encouraged.
学术细化(AD)是一种有效的基于证据的教育推广方法,可促进临床医生行为的改变。详细信息反馈对于计划评估很重要,但很少系统地收集。本研究的目的是开发一种衡量标准,以衡量详细信息员对 AD 计划有效性的看法。
最初从文献综述和专家小组咨询中开发了一个包含六个项目的五级量表。项目结构包括有用性、可接受性、可行性、相关性、沟通效果和改变的准备情况。在一项以阿片类药物为重点的 AD 计划中进行了试点、改进和测试,该计划包括两次访问。使用探索性因素分析评估仪器结构,使用项目间相关性(rho)、校正项目总相关性、克朗巴赫阿尔法(α)和项目反应理论评估测量可靠性。
最初的六个项目仪器表现出单一维度。该量表的 Cronbach α 在第一次访问时为 0.74,在第二次访问时为 0.79;一个项目(相关性)是多余的(删除时的α值为 0.73 和 0.79),因此被删除。与有用性、可接受性和改变准备度相关的项目具有较高的项目间相关性(rho≥0.50),并提供了最多的信息,根据项目反应理论分析,似乎作为一个单一的量表(即“改变的可能性”)运作。与可行性和沟通相关的项目是略有不同的结构,应分别报告。
详细信息员对访问效果的评估(“DAVE”)工具提供了一种评估 AD 的标准化方法。鼓励进一步研究其有效性,并在其他计划和教育推广活动中更广泛地使用。