Trial reportBMC health services research2015
Academic detailing of general practitioners by a respiratory physician for diagnosis and management of refractory breathlessness: a randomised pilot study.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- General practitioners' views and experiences in caring for patients after sepsis: a qualitative interview study.BMJ open · 2021Trial
- Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a personalised intervention for carers of people requiring home oxygen therapy.Chronic respiratory diseaseTrial
- Non-Pharmacological Breathlessness Action Plans for People with COPD and Their Support People: A Scoping Review and Survey of Current Practice.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Article
- Assessing the fidelity of a behavioural intervention involving academic detailing in general practice: a sub-study of the 'Implementing work-related Mental health guidelines in general PRacticE' (IMPRovE) trial.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Palliative Care Within the Primary Health Care Setting in Australia: A Scoping Review.Public health reviews · 2022Article
- Academic detailers' and general practitioners' views and experiences of their academic detailing visits to improve the quality of analgesic use: process evaluation alongside a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Academic Detailing Has a Positive Effect on Prescribing and Decreasing Prescription Drug Costs: A Health Plan's Perspective.American health & drug benefits · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcademic detailing (AD; also known as educational visiting) facilitates the translation of evidence into practice and has been widely adopted internationally to facilitate practice change. The potential of AD linked to a specific patient and delivered by a specialist physician to general practitioners has not been evaluated. This pilot study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of AD on the knowledge and confidence of GPs caring for people with advanced cancer who had breathlessness at the end of life.
methodsIn this randomised controlled pilot, 35 patient/GP dyads were randomised to AD or usual care. Key messages included: ensuring reversible causes were optimally treated; non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments were considered; and oxygen considered for hypoxaemic patients.
resultsAcceptability: The majority of GPs randomised to AD agreed to participate, reporting benefits to practice. The majority of GPs in the control group requested a copy of academic detailing written materials at study completion. Feasibility: AD visits to GPs' offices could be timetabled reasonably easily, with 24 detailing visits occurring. Self-reported knowledge and beliefs: Ninety two percent of GPs reported the topics covered in the AD sessions were useful, with 83% reporting an increase in knowledge and confidence. AD sessions resulted in 58% of GPs reporting a change in their approach to the management of breathlessness. By contrast, 81% of the usual care group reported low confidence in the management and knowledge of breathlessness.
conclusionAD was acceptable and feasible to participating GPs. This pilot supports proceeding to a fully powered study.
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.