James S Yeh1, Thomas J Van Hoof2, Michael A Fischer3. 1. Research Fellow, Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and a Clinical Fellow, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 2. 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. 3. Director, National Resource Center for Academic Detailing, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Academic detailing is an outreach education technique that combines the direct social marketing traditionally used by pharmaceutical representatives with unbiased content summarizing the best evidence for a given clinical issue. Academic detailing is conducted with clinicians to encourage evidence-based practice in order to improve the quality of care and patient outcomes. The adoption of academic detailing has increased substantially since the original studies in the 1980s. However, the lack of standard agreement on its implementation makes the evaluation of academic detailing outcomes challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify consensus on the key elements of academic detailing among a group of experts with varying experiences in academic detailing. METHODS: This study is based on an online survey of 20 experts with experience in academic detailing. We used the Delphi process, an iterative and systematic method of developing consensus within a group. We conducted 3 rounds of online surveys, which addressed 72 individual items derived from a previous literature review of 5 features of academic detailing, including (1) content, (2) communication process, (3) clinicians targeted, (4) change agents delivering intervention, and (5) context for intervention. Nonrespondents were removed from later rounds of the surveys. For most questions, a 4-point ordinal scale was used for responses. We defined consensus agreement as 70% of respondents for a single rating category or 80% for dichotomized ratings. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 95% (54 of 57 surveys) and nearly 92% consensus agreement on the survey items (66 of 72 items) by the end of the Delphi exercise. The experts' responses suggested that (1) focused clinician education offering support for clinical decision-making is a key component of academic detailing, (2) detailing messages need to be tailored and provide feasible strategies and solutions to challenging cases, and (3) academic detailers need to develop specific skill sets required to overcome barriers to changing clinician behavior. CONCLUSION: Consensus derived from this Delphi exercise can serve as a useful template of general principles in academic detailing initiatives and evaluation. The study findings are limited by the lack of standard definitions of certain terms used in the Delphi process.
BACKGROUND: Academic detailing is an outreach education technique that combines the direct social marketing traditionally used by pharmaceutical representatives with unbiased content summarizing the best evidence for a given clinical issue. Academic detailing is conducted with clinicians to encourage evidence-based practice in order to improve the quality of care and patient outcomes. The adoption of academic detailing has increased substantially since the original studies in the 1980s. However, the lack of standard agreement on its implementation makes the evaluation of academic detailing outcomes challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify consensus on the key elements of academic detailing among a group of experts with varying experiences in academic detailing. METHODS: This study is based on an online survey of 20 experts with experience in academic detailing. We used the Delphi process, an iterative and systematic method of developing consensus within a group. We conducted 3 rounds of online surveys, which addressed 72 individual items derived from a previous literature review of 5 features of academic detailing, including (1) content, (2) communication process, (3) clinicians targeted, (4) change agents delivering intervention, and (5) context for intervention. Nonrespondents were removed from later rounds of the surveys. For most questions, a 4-point ordinal scale was used for responses. We defined consensus agreement as 70% of respondents for a single rating category or 80% for dichotomized ratings. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 95% (54 of 57 surveys) and nearly 92% consensus agreement on the survey items (66 of 72 items) by the end of the Delphi exercise. The experts' responses suggested that (1) focused clinician education offering support for clinical decision-making is a key component of academic detailing, (2) detailing messages need to be tailored and provide feasible strategies and solutions to challenging cases, and (3) academic detailers need to develop specific skill sets required to overcome barriers to changing clinician behavior. CONCLUSION: Consensus derived from this Delphi exercise can serve as a useful template of general principles in academic detailing initiatives and evaluation. The study findings are limited by the lack of standard definitions of certain terms used in the Delphi process.
Authors: J Avorn; S B Soumerai; D E Everitt; D Ross-Degnan; M H Beers; D Sherman; S R Salem-Schatz; D Fields Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1992-07-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David Siegel; Julio Lopez; Joy Meier; Mary K Goldstein; Samuel Lee; Bradley J Brazill; Mazen S Matalka Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Geoffrey K Spurling; Peter R Mansfield; Brett D Montgomery; Joel Lexchin; Jenny Doust; Noordin Othman; Agnes I Vitry Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 11.069
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: Michael L Parchman; Melissa L Anderson; David A Dorr; Lyle J Fagnan; Ellen S O'Meara; Leah Tuzzio; Robert B Penfold; Andrea J Cook; Jeffrey Hummel; Cullen Conway; Raja Cholan; Laura-Mae Baldwin Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Sophie M Bruinsma; Monique J Roobol; Peter R Carroll; Laurence Klotz; Tom Pickles; Caroline M Moore; Vincent J Gnanapragasam; Arnauld Villers; Antti Rannikko; Riccardo Valdagni; Mark Frydenberg; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Christopher P Filson; Chris H Bangma Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Kelly S Barth; Sarah Ball; Rachel S Adams; Ruslan Nikitin; Nikki R Wooten; Zaina P Qureshi; Mary J Larson Journal: J Contin Educ Health Prof Date: 2017 Impact factor: 1.355
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: Gemmae M Fix; Timothy P Hogan; Daniel J Amante; D Keith McInnes; Kim M Nazi; Steven R Simon Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: L Desveaux; M Saragosa; J Rogers; L Bevan; H Loshak; A Moser; S Feldman; L Regier; L Jeffs; N M Ivers Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 7.327
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