Randomised trial of three approaches for marketing smoking cessation programmes to Australian general practitioners.

Cockburn, Jill; Ruth, Denise; Silagy, Chris; Dobbin, Malcolm; Reid, Yolande; Scollo, Michelle; Naccarella, Lucio

doi:10.1136/bmj.304.6828.691

Cited by 69 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(3) patient reports quit attempt (Cockburn et al, 1992); (4) actual duration of cessation (Kottke et al, 1989); and (5) use by patients of nicotine gum (Cohen et al, 1987(Cohen et al, , 1989.…”

Section: Levels Of Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring effectiveness for best evidence medical education: a discussion

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper considers how educational interventions should be evaluated for their effectiveness. Five levels of effectiveness are clarified and illustrated: outcomes, behaviour, learning, reaction and participation. These levels are then discussed, within the context of research evidence for education within the medical profession. Methodological and practical research conclusions are then drawn. From an analysis of over 300 abstracts the evidence shows that only limited research on healthcare outcomes has been undertaken, and there is considerable ambiguity over what constitutes an effectiveness measure. The benefits of a consistent set of terms are then considered. Finally, five key messages are distilled from the discussion and summarized.

show abstract

Section: Levels Of Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring effectiveness for best evidence medical education: a discussion

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While one randomized trial (n = 264) found that GPs who received academic detailing about a smoking cessation kit were significantly more likely to use 'intensive intervention' components of the kit than were GPs who received their materials by courier or mail, the authors concluded that neither the educational facilitator nor the courier approach was cost-effective. 18 Similarly, another study showed the rate of cervical screening in a region where all GPs (n = 85) were offered academic detailing did not increase compared with a control region. 30 Bonevski randomly allocated GPs Cancer screening in general practice 69 (n = 19) involved in a CME program to receive additional computer-generated feedback on clinical performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These strategies had been generated from previous local research 13,18 and key overseas literature. 19,20 Responders were asked to rate the usefulness of each strategy using a four-point scale ('quite a lot', 'a little', 'not at all' and 'unsure').…”

Section: Questionnaire Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies to improve cancer screening in general practice: are guidelines the answer?

Young

Ward

1999

Family Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Young JM and Ward JE. Strategies to improve cancer screening in general practice: are guidelines the answer? Family Practice 1999; 16: 66-70. Background. GPs are ideally placed to recommend appropriate cancer screening for their patients. However, opportunities to discuss screening are often missed and screening procedures are not always recommended in accordance with national policy. The development of clinical practice guidelines represents one strategy for improving cancer screening in general practice.Objective. We aimed to ascertain Australian GPs' ratings of current clinical practice guidelines and their views of the likely usefulness of 18 strategies to improve cancer screening in general practice. Method.A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to a national random sample of 1271 GPs in May 1996. Responders rated the usefulness of each of eight clinical practice guidelines current at the time of the survey. They then rated the usefulness of each of 18 strategies for support of cancer screening.Results. We received 855 completed questionnaires (a 67% response rate). There was greatest support for guidelines already available on breast and cervical cancer. The most popular strategy to improve cancer screening was seminars with experts in preventive care, rated as 'very useful' by 658 (77%), followed by NHMRC guidelines (597, 70%) and pamphlets for patients (587, 69%). There was less support for more innovative strategies including assessment and feedback (35%), case finding by nurse practitioners (11%) and academic detailing (10%). Conclusion.Responders indicated that strategies involving passive dissemination of information would be most useful for improving cancer screening in general practice. Identification of an effective combination of acceptable initiatives is needed.

show abstract

“…AD is a practitioner-centered approach, appropriate for all practice environments, including those without access to grand rounds or other group educational venues. AD is an inexpensive way to potentially increase physician engagement in complex treatment behaviors, and improve the care of a large number of smokers (18). Because the cost effectiveness of AD programs depends on both the relative proportion of patients who lack appropriate care for the target illness and the costs of convincing health professionals to promote therapeutic measures in this target group, the use of AD to promote tobacco use treatment in low socioeconomic status communities is likely to be highly cost effective (19).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Detailing Interventions Improve Tobacco Use Treatment among Physicians Working in Underserved Communities

Leone

Evers-Casey²,

Graden³

et al. 2015

Annals ATS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale: Tobacco use disproportionately affects the poor, who are, in turn, least likely to receive cessation treatment from providers. Providers caring for low-income populations perform simple components of tobacco use treatment (e.g., assessing tobacco use) with reasonable frequency. However, performance of complex treatment behaviors, such as pharmacologic prescription and followup arrangement, remains suboptimal.Objectives: Evaluate the influence of academic detailing (AD), a university-based, noncommercial, educational outreach intervention, on primary care physicians' complex treatment practice behaviors within an urban care setting.Methods: Trained academic detailers made in-person visits to targeted primary care practices, delivering verbal and written instruction emphasizing three key messages related to tobacco treatment. Physicians' self-reported frequency of simple and complex treatment behaviors were assessed using a seven-item questionnaire, before and 2 months after AD.Results: Between May 2011 and March 2012, baseline AD visits were made to 217 physicians, 109 (50%) of whom also received follow-up AD. Mean frequency scores for complex behaviors increased significantly, from 2.63 to 2.92, corresponding to a clinically significant 30% increase in the number of respondents who endorsed "almost always" or "always" (P , 0.001). Improvement in mean simple behavior frequency scores was also noted (3.98 vs. 4.13; P = 0.035). Sex and practice type appear to influence reported complex behavior frequency at baseline, whereas only practice type influenced improvement in complex behavior scores at follow up.Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility and potential effectiveness of a low-cost and highly disseminable intervention to improve clinician behavior in the context of treating nicotine dependence in underserved communities.

show abstract

Randomised trial of three approaches for marketing smoking cessation programmes to Australian general practitioners.

Cited by 69 publications

References 12 publications

Measuring effectiveness for best evidence medical education: a discussion

Measuring effectiveness for best evidence medical education: a discussion

Strategies to improve cancer screening in general practice: are guidelines the answer?

Academic Detailing Interventions Improve Tobacco Use Treatment among Physicians Working in Underserved Communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About