Cargando…

Interventions to Educate Family Physicians to Change Test Ordering: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

The purpose is to systematically review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to change family physicians’ laboratory test-ordering. We searched 15 electronic databases (no language/date limitations). We identified 29 RCTs (4,111 physicians, 175,563 patients). Six studies specifically focused on reduc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thomas, Roger Edmund, Vaska, Marcus, Naugler, Christopher, Chowdhury, Tanvir Turin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5497906/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28725760
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2374289516633476
_version_ 1783248213550039040
author Thomas, Roger Edmund
Vaska, Marcus
Naugler, Christopher
Chowdhury, Tanvir Turin
author_facet Thomas, Roger Edmund
Vaska, Marcus
Naugler, Christopher
Chowdhury, Tanvir Turin
author_sort Thomas, Roger Edmund
collection PubMed
description The purpose is to systematically review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to change family physicians’ laboratory test-ordering. We searched 15 electronic databases (no language/date limitations). We identified 29 RCTs (4,111 physicians, 175,563 patients). Six studies specifically focused on reducing unnecessary tests, 23 on increasing screening tests. Using Cochrane methodology 48.5% of studies were low risk-of-bias for randomisation, 7% concealment of randomisation, 17% blinding of participants/personnel, 21% blinding outcome assessors, 27.5% attrition, 93% selective reporting. Only six studies were low risk for both randomisation and attrition. Twelve studies performed a power computation, three an intention-to-treat analysis and 13 statistically controlled clustering. Unweighted averages were computed to compare intervention/control groups for tests assessed by >5 studies. The results were that fourteen studies assessed lipids (average 10% more tests than control), 14 diabetes (average 8% > control), 5 cervical smears, 2 INR, one each thyroid, fecal occult-blood, cotinine, throat-swabs, testing after prescribing, and urine-cultures. Six studies aimed to decrease test groups (average decrease 18%), and two to increase test groups. Intervention strategies: one study used education (no change): two feedback (one 5% increase, one 27% desired decrease); eight education + feedback (average increase in desired direction >control 4.9%), ten system change (average increase 14.9%), one system change + feedback (increases 5-44%), three education + system change (average increase 6%), three education + system change + feedback (average 7.7% increase), one delayed testing. The conclusions are that only six RCTs were assessed at low risk of bias from both randomisation and attrition. Nevertheless, despite methodological shortcomings studies that found large changes (e.g. >20%) probably obtained real change.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5497906
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54979062017-07-06 Interventions to Educate Family Physicians to Change Test Ordering: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Thomas, Roger Edmund Vaska, Marcus Naugler, Christopher Chowdhury, Tanvir Turin Acad Pathol Review Articles The purpose is to systematically review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to change family physicians’ laboratory test-ordering. We searched 15 electronic databases (no language/date limitations). We identified 29 RCTs (4,111 physicians, 175,563 patients). Six studies specifically focused on reducing unnecessary tests, 23 on increasing screening tests. Using Cochrane methodology 48.5% of studies were low risk-of-bias for randomisation, 7% concealment of randomisation, 17% blinding of participants/personnel, 21% blinding outcome assessors, 27.5% attrition, 93% selective reporting. Only six studies were low risk for both randomisation and attrition. Twelve studies performed a power computation, three an intention-to-treat analysis and 13 statistically controlled clustering. Unweighted averages were computed to compare intervention/control groups for tests assessed by >5 studies. The results were that fourteen studies assessed lipids (average 10% more tests than control), 14 diabetes (average 8% > control), 5 cervical smears, 2 INR, one each thyroid, fecal occult-blood, cotinine, throat-swabs, testing after prescribing, and urine-cultures. Six studies aimed to decrease test groups (average decrease 18%), and two to increase test groups. Intervention strategies: one study used education (no change): two feedback (one 5% increase, one 27% desired decrease); eight education + feedback (average increase in desired direction >control 4.9%), ten system change (average increase 14.9%), one system change + feedback (increases 5-44%), three education + system change (average increase 6%), three education + system change + feedback (average 7.7% increase), one delayed testing. The conclusions are that only six RCTs were assessed at low risk of bias from both randomisation and attrition. Nevertheless, despite methodological shortcomings studies that found large changes (e.g. >20%) probably obtained real change. SAGE Publications 2016-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5497906/ /pubmed/28725760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2374289516633476 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Review Articles
Thomas, Roger Edmund
Vaska, Marcus
Naugler, Christopher
Chowdhury, Tanvir Turin
Interventions to Educate Family Physicians to Change Test Ordering: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
title Interventions to Educate Family Physicians to Change Test Ordering: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_full Interventions to Educate Family Physicians to Change Test Ordering: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_fullStr Interventions to Educate Family Physicians to Change Test Ordering: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_full_unstemmed Interventions to Educate Family Physicians to Change Test Ordering: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_short Interventions to Educate Family Physicians to Change Test Ordering: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_sort interventions to educate family physicians to change test ordering: systematic review of randomized controlled trials
topic Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5497906/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28725760
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2374289516633476
work_keys_str_mv AT thomasrogeredmund interventionstoeducatefamilyphysicianstochangetestorderingsystematicreviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT vaskamarcus interventionstoeducatefamilyphysicianstochangetestorderingsystematicreviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT nauglerchristopher interventionstoeducatefamilyphysicianstochangetestorderingsystematicreviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT chowdhurytanvirturin interventionstoeducatefamilyphysicianstochangetestorderingsystematicreviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrials