Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24829020›Full record

ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2014

Physician assessments of the value of therapeutic information delivered via e-mail.

Roland Grad, Pierre Pluye, Carol Repchinsky, Barbara Jovaisas, Bernard Marlow, Ivan L Marques Ricarte, Maria Cristiane Barbosa Galvão, Michael Shulha, James de Gaspé Bonar, Jonathan L Moscovici

Erratum issuedAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Expected health benefits of e-Therapeutics Highlights according to pharmacists and physicians.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC · 2016
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
    Moscovici, Jonathan L [added]
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Roland GradAssociate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at McGill University in Montreal, Que roland.grad@mcgill.ca.
Pierre PluyeAssociate professors in the Department of Family Medicine at McGill University in Montreal, Que.
Carol RepchinskyAt the time of writing, Editor-in-Chief, at the Canadian Pharmacists Association in Ottawa, Ont.
Barbara JovaisasAt the time of writing, Clinical Editor, at the Canadian Pharmacist Association in Ottawa, Ont.
Bernard MarlowDirector of Continuing Professional Development at the College of Family Physicians of Canada in Mississauga, Ont, at the time of this study.
Ivan L Marques RicarteAssociate Professor at the University of Campinas in São Paulo, Brazil.
Maria Cristiane Barbosa GalvãoProfessor at the University of São Paulo in Brazil.
Michael ShulhaResearch Associate at the Herzl Family Practice Centre in Montreal.
James de Gaspé BonarSenior Director of Digital Publishing Solutions at the Canadian Pharmacists Association.
Jonathan L Moscovici

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

problem addressedAlthough e-learning programs are popular and access to electronic knowledge resources has improved, raising awareness about updated therapeutic recommendations in practice continues to be a challenge. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To raise awareness about and document the use of therapeutic recommendations. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: In 2010, family physicians evaluated e-Therapeutics (e-T) Highlights with a Web-based tool called the Information Assessment Method (IAM). The e-T Highlights consisted of information found in the primary care reference e-Therapeutics+. Each week, family physicians received an e-mail containing a link to 1 Highlight from a different chapter of e-Therapeutics+. Family physicians received continuing medical education credits for each Highlight they rated with the IAM. Of the 5346 participants, 85% of them were full-time or part-time practitioners. A total of 31 429 Highlights ratings were received in 2010 (median of 2 ratings per participant, range 1 to 49). Among participants who rated more than 2 Highlights, the median number of ratings was 7 (mean 11.9). The relevance of the information from individual Highlights varied widely; however, for 90% of the rated Highlights participants indicated total or partial relevance of the information for at least 1 patient. For 41% of rated Highlights, participants expected patient health benefits to result from implementing the recommendation, such as avoiding an unnecessary or inappropriate treatment, or a preventive intervention.

conclusionThis continuing medical education program stimulated family physicians to rate therapeutic recommendations that were delivered weekly via e-mail. The process of rating e-T Highlights with the IAM raised awareness about treatment recommendations and documented self-reported use of this information in practice.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelElectronic MailInternetAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCanadaEducation, Medical, ContinuingFamily PracticeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Self Report

Identifiers

PMID24829020
PMCPMC4020663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.