PURPOSE: To compare group versus individual academic detailing to increase diuretic or beta-blocker use in hypertension. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial in a large health maintenance organization. Subjects (N=9820) were patients with newly treated hypertension in the year preceding the intervention (N=3692), the 9 months following the intervention (N=3556), and the second year following intervention (N=2572). We randomly allocated 3 practice sites to group detailing (N=227 prescribers), 3 to individual detailing (N=235 prescribers), and 3 to usual care (N=319 prescribers). Individual detailing entailed a physician-educator meeting individually with clinicians to address barriers to prescribing guideline-recommended medications. The group detailing intervention incorporated the same social marketing principles in small groups of clinicians. RESULTS: In the first year following the intervention, the rates of diuretic or beta-blocker use increased by 13.2% in the group detailing practices, 12.5% in the individual detailing practices, and 6.2% in the usual care practices. As compared with usual care practices, diuretic or beta-blocker use was more likely in group detailing practices (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11 - 1.76) and individual detailing practices (adjusted OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.95 - 1.79). Neither intervention affected blood pressure control. Two years following this single-visit intervention, there was still a trend suggesting a persistent effect of individual (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.92 - 1.62), but not group, detailing (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.80 - 1.39), as compared with usual care. CONCLUSION: Both group and individual academic detailing improved antihypertensive prescribing over and above usual care but may require reinforcement to sustain improvements.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare group versus individual academic detailing to increase diuretic or beta-blocker use in hypertension. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial in a large health maintenance organization. Subjects (N=9820) were patients with newly treated hypertension in the year preceding the intervention (N=3692), the 9 months following the intervention (N=3556), and the second year following intervention (N=2572). We randomly allocated 3 practice sites to group detailing (N=227 prescribers), 3 to individual detailing (N=235 prescribers), and 3 to usual care (N=319 prescribers). Individual detailing entailed a physician-educator meeting individually with clinicians to address barriers to prescribing guideline-recommended medications. The group detailing intervention incorporated the same social marketing principles in small groups of clinicians. RESULTS: In the first year following the intervention, the rates of diuretic or beta-blocker use increased by 13.2% in the group detailing practices, 12.5% in the individual detailing practices, and 6.2% in the usual care practices. As compared with usual care practices, diuretic or beta-blocker use was more likely in group detailing practices (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11 - 1.76) and individual detailing practices (adjusted OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.95 - 1.79). Neither intervention affected blood pressure control. Two years following this single-visit intervention, there was still a trend suggesting a persistent effect of individual (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.92 - 1.62), but not group, detailing (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.80 - 1.39), as compared with usual care. CONCLUSION: Both group and individual academic detailing improved antihypertensive prescribing over and above usual care but may require reinforcement to sustain improvements.
Authors: Jesper Schramm; Morten Andersen; Kirstin Vach; Jakob Kragstrup; Jens Peter Kampmann; Jens Søndergaard Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Robert J Fortuna; Fang Zhang; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Francis X Campion; Jonathan A Finkelstein; Jamie B Kotch; Adrianne C Feldstein; David H Smith; Steven R Simon Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Robert B Penfold; James F Burgess; Austin F Lee; Mingfei Li; Christopher J Miller; Marjorie Nealon Seibert; Todd P Semla; David C Mohr; Lewis E Kazis; Mark S Bauer Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Denise E Bonds; Patricia E Hogan; Alain G Bertoni; Haiying Chen; C Randall Clinch; Ann E Hiott; Erica L Rosenberger; David C Goff Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Amy Waller; Afaf Girgis; Claire Johnson; Geoff Mitchell; Patsy Yates; Linda Kristjanson; Martin Tattersall; Christophe Lecathelinais; David Sibbritt; Brian Kelly; Emma Gorton; David Currow Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: M A O'Brien; S Rogers; G Jamtvedt; A D Oxman; J Odgaard-Jensen; D T Kristoffersen; L Forsetlund; D Bainbridge; N Freemantle; D A Davis; R B Haynes; E L Harvey Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2007-10-17
Authors: Jeff Luck; Fred Hagigi; Louise E Parker; Elizabeth M Yano; Lisa V Rubenstein; JoAnn E Kirchner Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-09-28 Impact factor: 7.327