Thomas J Van Hoof1, Lisa G Harrison2, Nicole E Miller3, Maryanne S Pappas4, Michael A Fischer5. 1. Associate Professor, University of Connecticut School of Nursing, Storrs, CT, and Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine and Health Care, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT. 2. PhD candidate, University of Connecticut School of Nursing, Storrs, CT. 3. Nurse, Hartford Healthcare, Hartford, CT. 4. Nurse Practitioner, Division of Neuroscience, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, and a PhD candidate, University of Connecticut School of Nursing, Storrs, CT. 5. Director, National Resource Center for Academic Detailing, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Academic detailing is an evidence-based strategy to improve patient care. Efforts to understand the intervention and to use it strategically require an understanding of its important characteristics. A recent systematic review and a subsequent reporting framework call for more accurate and complete reporting of continuing medical education interventions. OBJECTIVES: Building on a previously published systematic review of 69 studies, we sought to determine how an expanded set of 106 academic detailing studies, including many recently published articles, fared with respect to reporting of important data about this intervention. METHODS: We conducted a search of MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (clinical) database, and Scopus, from which we identified 38 additional randomized controlled trials published from August 2007 through March 2013. Including the original 69 studies, we abstracted 106 available English-language studies and quantitatively analyzed information about 4 important characteristics of academic detailing: content of visits, clinicians being visited, communication process underlying visits, and outreach workers making visits. RESULTS: We found considerable variation (36.5%-100%) in the extent of reporting intervention characteristics, especially about the communication process underlying visits and the outreach workers making visits. The best overall documentation of intervention characteristics of any single study was 68%. Results also demonstrate wide variation in the approach to academic detailing. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the need for a standardized approach to collecting and reporting data about academic detailing interventions. Our findings also highlight opportunities for using academic detailing more effectively in research and quality-improvement efforts.
BACKGROUND: Academic detailing is an evidence-based strategy to improve patient care. Efforts to understand the intervention and to use it strategically require an understanding of its important characteristics. A recent systematic review and a subsequent reporting framework call for more accurate and complete reporting of continuing medical education interventions. OBJECTIVES: Building on a previously published systematic review of 69 studies, we sought to determine how an expanded set of 106 academic detailing studies, including many recently published articles, fared with respect to reporting of important data about this intervention. METHODS: We conducted a search of MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (clinical) database, and Scopus, from which we identified 38 additional randomized controlled trials published from August 2007 through March 2013. Including the original 69 studies, we abstracted 106 available English-language studies and quantitatively analyzed information about 4 important characteristics of academic detailing: content of visits, clinicians being visited, communication process underlying visits, and outreach workers making visits. RESULTS: We found considerable variation (36.5%-100%) in the extent of reporting intervention characteristics, especially about the communication process underlying visits and the outreach workers making visits. The best overall documentation of intervention characteristics of any single study was 68%. Results also demonstrate wide variation in the approach to academic detailing. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the need for a standardized approach to collecting and reporting data about academic detailing interventions. Our findings also highlight opportunities for using academic detailing more effectively in research and quality-improvement efforts.
Entities:
Keywords:
academic detailing; continuing education; continuing medical education; educational outreach; health professions education; narrative review; quality improvement; systematic review
Authors: P McBride; G Underbakke; M B Plane; K Massoth; R L Brown; L I Solberg; L Ellis; H G Schrott; K Smith; T Swanson; E Spencer; G Pfeifer; A Knox Journal: J Fam Pract Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 0.493
Authors: Spyridon S Marinopoulos; Todd Dorman; Neda Ratanawongsa; Lisa M Wilson; Bimal H Ashar; Jeffrey L Magaziner; Redonda G Miller; Patricia A Thomas; Gregory P Prokopowicz; Rehan Qayyum; Eric B Bass Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) Date: 2007-01
Authors: S F Jencks; T Cuerdon; D R Burwen; B Fleming; P M Houck; A E Kussmaul; D S Nilasena; D L Ordin; D R Arday Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-10-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: B D Frijling; C M Lobo; M E J L Hulscher; R P Akkermans; B B van Drenth; A Prins; J C van der Wouden; R P T M Grol Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2003-06
Authors: Mary H Smart; Andrea L Monteiro; Christopher D Saffore; Aleksandrina Ruseva; Todd A Lee; Michael A Fischer; Alan Simon Pickard Journal: J Contin Educ Health Prof Date: 2020 Impact factor: 2.190
Authors: Andrea Tamburrano; Claudia Mellucci; Caterina Galletti; Daniela Vitale; Doriana Vallone; Andrea Barbara; Anna Sguera; Maurizio Zega; Gianfranco Damiani; Patrizia Laurenti Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Aminu Bello; Deenaz Zaidi; Branko Braam; Mark Courtney; Jodi Glassford; Kailash Jindal; Scott Klarenbach; Julia Kurzawa; Mohammed Osman; Nairne Scott-Douglas; Sue Szigety; Stephanie Thompson; Braden Manns; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Marcello Tonelli Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2019-09-30
Authors: Jing Li; Susan S Smyth; Jessica M Clouser; Colleen A McMullen; Vedant Gupta; Mark V Williams Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 2.430
Authors: Julie M Donohue; Hasan Guclu; Walid F Gellad; Chung-Chou H Chang; Haiden A Huskamp; Niteesh K Choudhry; Ruoxin Zhang; Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic; Stefanie P Junker; Timothy Anderson; Seth Richards-Shubik Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Roar Dyrkorn; Harald Christian Langaas; Trude Giverhaug; Ketil Arne Espnes; Debra Rowett; Olav Spigset Journal: Adv Med Educ Pract Date: 2019-08-30