ArticleBMC family practice2010
General practitioners and tutors' experiences with peer group academic detailing: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC family practice, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with potentially inappropriate prescriptions and barriers to medicines optimisation among older adults in primary care settings: a systematic review.Family medicine and community health · 2021Pooled it
- Health care professionals' attitudes towards deprescribing in older patients with limited life expectancy: A systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care: an updated and expanded meta-ethnography.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The effectiveness of a semi-tailored facilitator-based intervention to optimise chronic care management in general practice: a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2014Trial
- Prescription peer academic detailing to reduce inappropriate prescribing for older patients: a cluster randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013Trial
- Improving antibiotic prescribing in acute respiratory tract infections: cluster randomised trial from Norwegian general practice (prescription peer academic detailing (Rx-PAD) study).BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013Trial
- Association between time spent interpreting, level of confidence, and accuracy of screening mammography.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2012Trial
- Patient-Related Factors Associated With the Initiation of Potentially Inappropriate Medication in Home Care: An Observational Study Based on Resident Assessment Instrument Data.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2025Observational
- Motivation and Participation in Training Among Healthcare Workers in Makkah, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- Promoters and inhibitors for quality improvement work in general practice: a qualitative analysis of 2715 free-text replies.BMJ open quality · 2022Article
- Article
- Use of quality circles for primary care providers in 24 European countries: an online survey of European Society for Quality and Safety in family practice delegates.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2019Article
- General Practitioners' Attitudes toward Municipal Initiatives to Improve Antibiotic Prescribing-A Mixed-Methods Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Characteristics of GPs responding to an educational intervention to minimise inappropriate prescriptions: subgroup analyses of the Rx-PAD study.BJGP open · 2018Article
- Quality circles for quality improvement in primary health care: Their origins, spread, effectiveness and lacunae- A scoping review.PloS one · 2018Article
- Improving the appropriateness of antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an academic detailing intervention.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- Recommendations from recent graduates in medicine, nursing and pharmacy on improving interprofessional education in university programs: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2014Article
- Case stories in general practice: a focus group study.BMJ open · 2012Article
- Network Analysis of Medical Claims Data Suggests Network-Based, Regional Targeting and Intervention Delivery Strategies to Increase Access to Office Based Opioid Treatment (OBOT) for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD).Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Prescription Peer Academic Detailing (Rx-PAD) project is an educational intervention study aiming at improving GPs' competence in pharmacotherapy. GPs in CME peer groups were randomised to receive a tailored intervention, either to support a safer prescription practice for elderly patients or to improve prescribing of antibiotics to patients with respiratory tract infections. The project was based on the principles of peer group academic detailing, incorporating individual feedback on GPs' prescription patterns. We did a study to explore GPs and tutors' experiences with peer group academic detailing, and to explore GPs' reasons for deviating from recommended prescribing practice.
methodsData was collected through nine focus group interviews with a total of 39 GPs and 20 tutors. Transcripts from the interviews were analyzed by two researchers according to a procedure for thematic content analysis.
resultsA shared understanding of the complex decision-making involved in prescribing in general practice was reported by both GPs and tutors as essential for an open discussion in the CME groups. Tutors experienced that CME groups differed regarding structure and atmosphere, and in some groups it was a challenge to run the scheme as planned. Individual feedback motivated GPs to reflect on and to improve their prescribing practice, though feedback reports could cause distress if the prescribing practice was unfavourable. Explanations for inappropriate prescriptions were lack of knowledge, factors associated with patients, the GP's background, the practice, and other health professionals or health care facilities.
conclusionsGPs and tutors experienced peer group academic detailing as a suitable method to discuss and learn more about pharmacotherapy. An important outcome for GPs was being more reflective about their prescriptions. Disclosure of inappropriate prescribing can cause distress in some doctors, and tutors must be prepared to recognise and manage such reactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.