Physician attitudes toward strategies to promote the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: [corrected] Promoting the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice has been advocated as one approach to improving healthcare quality and reducing medical errors. Data describing the effectiveness of different strategies to achieve this goal in real-world settings are limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of selected interventions on the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of a random sample of physicians selected from the American Medical Association's Physician Master File. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined the perceived effectiveness of 7 strategies (represented by 27 individual interventions) and 5 general approaches for promoting the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice in 1100 practicing physicians. Respondent exposure to interventions was also determined. Regression analyses were performed to identify factors that affected effectiveness ratings. Analysis of variance was used to test the hypothesis of equal mean scores across different comparison groups. RESULTS: Of 1,100 surveys mailed, 63 (5.7%) were excluded and 431 were completed (response rate = 41.6%). Mean +/- SD effectiveness scores for the 27 individual interventions on a 5-point Likert scale ranged from 2.0 +/- 0.9 (literature received from insurance companies and managed care organizations) to 4.2 +/- 0.8 (one-on-one communication with respected colleagues). Ranges for the 7 strategies were 2.6 +/- 1.0 (patient-mediated interventions) to 3.6 +/- 0.9 (educational meetings) and for the 5 general approaches were 1.98 +/- 0.9 (administrative interventions) to 3.3 +/- 0.8 (provider education). The hypothesis of equal mean effectiveness scores was rejected for all comparisons (P < .001). Frequency of exposure was the only variable to predict effectiveness (P < .001 for all regression models). CONCLUSION: From the perspective of practicing physicians, the frequency of exposure to strategies for promoting the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice strongly affects their perceived effectiveness.

The limited incorporation of economic analyses in clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Because there is increasing concern that economic data are not used in the clinical guideline development process, our objective was to evaluate the extent to which economic analyses are incorporated in guideline development. METHODS: We searched medline and HealthSTAR databases to identify English-language clinical practice guidelines (1996-1999) and economic analyses (1990-1998). Additional guidelines were obtained from The National Guidelines Clearinghouse Internet site available at http://www.guideline.gov. Eligible guidelines met the Institute of Medicine definition and addressed a topic included in an economic analysis. Eligible economic analyses assessed interventions addressed in a guideline and predated the guideline by 1 or more years. Economic analyses were defined as incorporated in guideline development if 1) the economic analysis or the results were mentioned in the text or 2) listed as a reference. The quality of economic analyses was assessed using a structured scoring system. RESULTS: Using guidelines as the unit of analysis, 9 of 35 (26%) incorporated at least 1 economic analysis of above-average quality in the text and 11 of 35 (31%) incorporated at least 1 in the references. Using economic analyses as the unit of analysis, 63 economic analyses of above-average quality had opportunities for incorporation in 198 instances across the 35 guidelines. Economic analyses were incorporated in the text in 13 of 198 instances (7%) and in the references in 18 of 198 instances (9%). CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous economic analyses may be infrequently incorporated in the development of clinical practice guidelines. A systematic approach to guideline development should be used to ensure the consideration of economic analyses so that recommendations from guidelines may impact both the quality of care and the efficient allocation of resources.