Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8899833›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical research1996

Design and results of a group counter-detailing DUR educational program.

K B Farris, D M Kirking, L A Shimp, R A Opdycke

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical research, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

K B FarrisUniversity of Alberta Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Edmonton, Canada.
D M Kirking
L A Shimp
R A Opdycke

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe study objectives were to (1) design, (2) implement and (3) evaluate a multi-step educational program as an integral component of a healthcare system's activities to improve medication use quality and control drug costs. Design and implementation of the educational program were based upon established principles of changing prescriber behavior. Two classes of oral medications, antihistamines and antibiotics, were targeted.

methodsA before-after nonequivalent comparison group design with 2 comparison groups was used for evaluation. Medication claims data from the same time period one year previously were used as historical controls. Prescribing rates, net savings and prescribers' attitudes were assessed.

resultsPrescribing trends in the treatment group but not comparison groups generally reflected changes consistent with the educational message. A net savings of $84 was achieved in the antihistamine program. A net loss of ($2722) was seen in the antibiotic program. Over 75 percent of prescribers agreed or strongly agreed that the educational program was an appropriate mechanism to optimize medication use. Level of exposure and practice years affected perceived knowledge gains.

conclusionThe group counter-detailing DUR educational program was effective in improving prescribing rates. Prescribing rate changes and economic impacts differed by therapeutic category. The entire program was well accepted among prescribers including physicians and nurse practitioners.

Indexed as

Drug Utilization ReviewEducation, MedicalDrug PrescriptionsHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'

Identifiers

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.