OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different guideline implementation strategies, using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Guideline 42 "Management of unerupted and impacted third molar teeth" (published 2000) as a model. DESIGN: A pragmatic, cluster RCT (2x2 factorial design). SUBJECTS:Sixty-three dental practices across Scotland. Clinical records of all 16-24-year-old patients over two, four-month periods in 1999 (pre-intervention) and 2000 (post-intervention) were searched by a clinical researcher blind to the intervention group. Data were also gathered on the costs of the interventions. INTERVENTIONS: Group 1 received a copy of SIGN 42 Guideline and had an opportunity to attend a postgraduate education course (PGEC). In addition to this, group 2 received audit and feedback (A and F). Group 3 received a computer aided learning (CAL) package. Group 4 received A and F and CAL. PRINCIPAL OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The proportion of patients whose treatment complied with the guideline. RESULTS: The weighted t-test for A and F versus no A and F (P=0.62) and CAL versus no CAL (P=0.76) were not statistically significant. Given the effectiveness results (no difference) the cost effectiveness calculation became a cost-minimisation calculation. The minimum cost intervention in the trial consisted of providing general dental practitioners (GDPs) with guidelines and the option of attending PGEC courses. Routine data which subsequently became available showed a Scotland-wide fall in extractions prior to data collection. CONCLUSION: In an environment in which pre-intervention compliance was unexpectedly high, neither CAL nor A and F increased the dentists' compliance with the SIGN guideline compared with mailing of the guideline and the opportunity to attend a postgraduate course. The cost of the CAL arm of the trial was greater than the A and F arm. Further work is required to understand dental professionals' behaviour in response to guideline implementation strategies.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different guideline implementation strategies, using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Guideline 42 "Management of unerupted and impacted third molar teeth" (published 2000) as a model. DESIGN: A pragmatic, cluster RCT (2x2 factorial design). SUBJECTS: Sixty-three dental practices across Scotland. Clinical records of all 16-24-year-old patients over two, four-month periods in 1999 (pre-intervention) and 2000 (post-intervention) were searched by a clinical researcher blind to the intervention group. Data were also gathered on the costs of the interventions. INTERVENTIONS: Group 1 received a copy of SIGN 42 Guideline and had an opportunity to attend a postgraduate education course (PGEC). In addition to this, group 2 received audit and feedback (A and F). Group 3 received a computer aided learning (CAL) package. Group 4 received A and F and CAL. PRINCIPAL OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The proportion of patients whose treatment complied with the guideline. RESULTS: The weighted t-test for A and F versus no A and F (P=0.62) and CAL versus no CAL (P=0.76) were not statistically significant. Given the effectiveness results (no difference) the cost effectiveness calculation became a cost-minimisation calculation. The minimum cost intervention in the trial consisted of providing general dental practitioners (GDPs) with guidelines and the option of attending PGEC courses. Routine data which subsequently became available showed a Scotland-wide fall in extractions prior to data collection. CONCLUSION: In an environment in which pre-intervention compliance was unexpectedly high, neither CAL nor A and F increased the dentists' compliance with the SIGN guideline compared with mailing of the guideline and the opportunity to attend a postgraduate course. The cost of the CAL arm of the trial was greater than the A and F arm. Further work is required to understand dental professionals' behaviour in response to guideline implementation strategies.
Authors: Jan E Clarkson; Craig R Ramsay; Martin P Eccles; Sandra Eldridge; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Marie Johnston; Susan Michie; Shaun Treweek; Alan Walker; Linda Young; Irene Black; Debbie Bonetti; Heather Cassie; Jill Francis; Gillian Mackenzie; Lorna Macpherson; Lorna McKee; Nigel Pitts; Jim Rennie; Doug Stirling; Colin Tilley; Carole Torgerson; Luke Vale Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Donald Brad Rindal; Thomas J Flottemesch; Emily U Durand; Olga V Godlevsky; Andrew M Schmidt; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Amy R Villarosa; Della Maneze; Lucie M Ramjan; Ravi Srinivas; Michelle Camilleri; Ajesh George Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Lin Wang; Johana Ren; Kevin A Fiscella; Sherita Bullock; Mechelle R Sanders; Elizabeth L Loomis; Eli Eliav; Michael Mendoza; Rita Cacciato; Marie Thomas; Dorota T Kopycka-Kedzierawski; Ronald J Billings; Jin Xiao Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Heather L Colquhoun; Jamie C Brehaut; Anne Sales; Noah Ivers; Jeremy Grimshaw; Susan Michie; Kelly Carroll; Mathieu Chalifoux; Kevin W Eva Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-06-10 Impact factor: 7.327