Attitudes and other barriers to the utilization of clinical research findings by American physicians: A systematic review

Background: The Institute of Medicine estimates that only a maximum of 25% of clinical research findings are incorporated into practice by physicians. To improve clinical practice, efforts have been made to promote evidence-based medicine and the use of clinical guidelines. Despite these efforts, the gap between research and clinical practice remains wide.^ Objective: To systematically review the literature describing the factors which influence the use of clinical research recommendations by American physicians.^ Hypothesis: Barriers exist in the application of clinical research into clinical practice, and are multifactorial. The establishment of the Clinical and Translational Awards (CTSA; special federal grants awarded to selected institutions to support clinical and translational research) has reduced the effect of these barriers and improved the process of clinical research translation into practice among American physicians.^ Aims: Identify barriers and facilitators of the use of research findings in clinical practice by American physicians. Contrast studies published six years before and after the creation of the CTSA.^ Methods: The sources of data include published literature from Medline, PubMed and PsycINFO. Selected studies must be qualitative, a survey of American clinicians, based on evidence-based medicine practice, clinical guidelines or treatment pathways. Systematic reviews and reports were excluded, as well as studies with less than 100 respondents.^ Results: In total, 1036 abstracts were reviewed; 115 full text potential articles were identified and reviewed, and a total of 31 studies met all criteria for inclusion in the final review.^ Conclusions: The barriers against the application of clinical research findings, in the forms of clinical guidelines, evidence-based medicine guides and clinical pathways, can be divided broadly into physician barriers, practice/system barriers and patient barriers. Physician barriers are the most common barriers, especially the lack of familiarity with guidelines and the lack of time. Of the factors which improve the use of research based guidelines, physician factors such as younger age, lower duration of clinical practice, specialty training, and practice in large group Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) settings with fewer patients seen were the most commonly cited.^

A comparative analysis of hospital -based physician monitoring systems

The purpose of the multiple case-study was to determine how hospital subsystems (such as physician monitoring and credentialing; quality assurance; risk management; and peer review) were supporting the monitoring of physicians? Three large metropolitan hospitals in Texas were studied and designated as hospitals #1, #2, and #3. Realizing that hospital subsystems are a unique entity and part of a larger system, conclusions were made on the premises of a quality control system, in relation to the tools of government (particularly the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA)), and in relation to itself as a tool of a hospital.^ Three major analytical assessments were performed. First, the subsystems were analyzed as to their "completeness"; secondly, the subsystems were analyzed for "performance"; and thirdly, the subsystems were analyzed in reference to the interaction of completeness and performance.^ The physician credentialing and monitoring and the peer review subsystems as quality control systems were most complete, efficient, and effective in hospitals #1 and #3. The HCQIA did not seem to be an influencing factor in the completeness of the subsystem in hospital #1. The quality assurance and risk management subsystem in hospital #2 was not representative of completeness and performance and the HCQIA was not an influencing factor in the completeness of the Q.A. or R.M. systems in any hospital. The efficiency (computerization) of the physician credentialing, quality assurance and peer review subsystems in hospitals #1 and #3 seemed to contribute to their effectiveness (system-wide effect).^ The results indicated that the more complete, effective, and efficient subsystems were characterized by (1) all defined activities being met, (2) the HCQIA being an influencing factor, (3) a decentralized administrative structure, (4) computerization an important element, and (5) staff was sophisticated in subsystem operations. However, other variables were identified which deserve further research as to their effect on completeness and performance of subsystems. They include (1) medical staff affiliations, (2) system funding levels, (3) the system's administrative structure, and (4) the physician staff "cultural" characteristics. Perhaps by understanding other influencing factors, health care administrators may plan subsystems that will be compatible with legislative requirements and administrative objectives. ^

Estimates of hospital and physician costs of epilepsy in the United States for 1995 comparing the provider -based survey method and a patient -based medical charts and billing method

This investigation compares two different methodologies for calculating the national cost of epilepsy: provider-based survey method (PBSM) and the patient-based medical charts and billing method (PBMC&BM). The PBSM uses the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS), the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) as the sources of utilization. The PBMC&BM uses patient data, charts and billings, to determine utilization rates for specific components of hospital, physician and drug prescriptions. ^ The 1995 hospital and physician cost of epilepsy is estimated to be $722 million using the PBSM and $1,058 million using the PBMC&BM. The difference of $336 million results from $136 million difference in utilization and $200 million difference in unit cost. ^ Utilization. The utilization difference of $136 million is composed of an inpatient variation of $129 million, $100 million hospital and $29 million physician, and an ambulatory variation of $7 million. The $100 million hospital variance is attributed to inclusion of febrile seizures in the PBSM, $−79 million, and the exclusion of admissions attributed to epilepsy, $179 million. The former suggests that the diagnostic codes used in the NHDS may not properly match the current definition of epilepsy as used in the PBMC&BM. The latter suggests NHDS errors in the attribution of an admission to the principal diagnosis. ^ The $29 million variance in inpatient physician utilization is the result of different per-day-of-care physician visit rates, 1.3 for the PBMC&BM versus 1.0 for the PBSM. The absence of visit frequency measures in the NHDS affects the internal validity of the PBSM estimate and requires the investigator to make conservative assumptions. ^ The remaining ambulatory resource utilization variance is $7 million. Of this amount, $22 million is the result of an underestimate of ancillaries in the NHAMCS and NAMCS extrapolations using the patient visit weight. ^ Unit cost. The resource cost variation is $200 million, inpatient is $22 million and ambulatory is $178 million. The inpatient variation of $22 million is composed of $19 million in hospital per day rates, due to a higher cost per day in the PBMC&BM, and $3 million in physician visit rates, due to a higher cost per visit in the PBMC&BM. ^ The ambulatory cost variance is $178 million, composed of higher per-physician-visit costs of $97 million and higher per-ancillary costs of $81 million. Both are attributed to the PBMC&BM's precise identification of resource utilization that permits accurate valuation. ^ Conclusion. Both methods have specific limitations. The PBSM strengths are its sample designs that lead to nationally representative estimates and permit statistical point and confidence interval estimation for the nation for certain variables under investigation. However, the findings of this investigation suggest the internal validity of the estimates derived is questionable and important additional information required to precisely estimate the cost of an illness is absent. ^ The PBMC&BM is a superior method in identifying resources utilized in the physician encounter with the patient permitting more accurate valuation. However, the PBMC&BM does not have the statistical reliability of the PBSM; it relies on synthesized national prevalence estimates to extrapolate a national cost estimate. While precision is important, the ability to generalize to the nation may be limited due to the small number of patients that are followed. ^

Discriminant analysis of the specialty of elite cyclist

The different demands of competition coupled with the morphological and physiological characteristics of cyclists have led to the appearance of cycling specialities. The aims of this study were to determine the differences in the anthropometric and physiological features in road cyclists with different specialities, and to develop a multivariate model to classify these specialities and predict which speciality may be appropriate to a given cyclist. Twenty male, elite amateur cyclists were classified by their trainers as either flat terrain riders, hill climbers, or all-terrain riders. Anthropometric and cardiorespiratory studies were then undertaken. The results were analysed by MANOVA and two discriminant tests. Most differences between the speciality groups were of an anthropometric nature. The only cardiorespiratory variable that differed significantly (p < 0.05) was maximum oxygen consumption with respect to body weight (VO2max/kg). The first discriminant test classified 100% of the cyclists within their true speciality; the second, which took into account only anthropometric variables, correctly classified 75%. The first discriminant model allows the likely speciality of still non-elite cyclists to be predicted from a small number of variables, and may therefore help in their specific training.

Associations among Physician Advice, Physical Activity, and Sociodemographic Groups in Older Spanish Adults

This study examined the relationship between medical advice to engage in physical activity with type of demand required by physical activity and demographic variables. A cross-sectional study was developed, featuring a questionnaire on physicians? advice, and type of demand. The questionnaire was completed by a probability and nationwide sample of older adults in Spain ( n = 933, M = 74.1, range 65?93), randomly selected using multistage sampling. More physically active older adults have, more often than the less active, received physicians? advice to engage in physical activity. There is a signifi cant relationship between medical advice and type of demand ( p menor que .01) and age ( p menor que .05). However, no relationship was found between physician medical advice and gender, social class, or income. Physicians can effectively promote physical activity among sedentary older adults through appropriate advice. Consequently, health authorities should promote physicians' advising older patients to pursue physical activity.

Validación de la versión española del cuestionario Physician Readiness To Manage Intimate Partner Violence Survey (PREMIS)

Fundamentos: El Physician Readiness to Manage Intimate Partner Violence Survey (PREMIS) es uno de los cuestionarios más completos en el contexto internacional para la valoración de la capacidad de respuesta frente a la violencia del compañero íntimo por los profesionales de Atención Primaria de Salud. El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar la fiabilidad, consistencia interna y validez de constructo de la versión española de este cuestionario. Métodos: Tras la traducción, retrotraducción y valoración de la validez de contenido del cuestionario, se distribuyeron en una muestra de 200 profesionales de medicina y enfermería de 15 centros de atención primaria de 4 Comunidades Autónomas en 2013 (Comunidad Valenciana, Castilla León, Murcia y Cantabria). Se calcularon los coeficientes alfa de Cronbach, los de correlación intraclase y rho de Spearman (test-retest). Resultados: la versión española del PREMIS incluyó 64 ítems. El coeficiente α de Cronbach fue superior a 0,7 o muy cercano a ese valor en la mayoría de los índices. Se obtuvo un coeficiente de correlación intraclase de 0,87 y un coeficiente de Spearman de 0,67 que muestran una fiabilidad alta. Todas las correlaciones observadas para la escala de opiniones, la única tratada como estructura factorial en el cuestionario PREMIS, fueron superiores a 0,30. Conclusiones: el PREMIS en español obtuvo una buena validez interna, alta fiabilidad y capacidad predictiva de las prácticas auto-referidas por médicos(as) y enfermeros(as) frente a casos de violencia del compañero íntimo en centros de atención primaria.

Physician control of Blue Shield plans /

Mode of access: Internet.

Directory of EPA/state contacts by specialty.

Mode of access: Internet.