Influence of evidence-based guidance on health policy and clinical practice in England

Can the results of a randomized controlled trial change the treatment preferences of orthopaedic surgeons?

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate surgeons' reported change of treatment preference in response to the results and conclusion from a randomized contolled trial (RCT) and to study patterns of change between subspecialties and nationalities.

Methods

Two questionnaires were developed through the Delphi process for this cross-sectional survey of surgical preference. The first questionnaire was sent out before the publication of a RCT and the second questionnaire was sent out after publication. The RCT investigated repair or non-repair of the pronator quadratus (PQ) muscle during volar locked plating of distal radial fractures (DRFs). Overall, 380 orthopaedic surgeons were invited to participate in the first questionnaire, of whom 115 replied. One hundred surgeons were invited to participate in the second questionnaire. The primary outcome was the proportion of surgeons for whom a treatment change was warranted, who then reported a change of treatment preference following the RCT. Secondary outcomes included the reasons for repair or non-repair, reasons for and against following the RCT results, and difference of preferred treatment of the PQ muscle between surgeons of different nationalities, qualifications, years of training, and number of procedures performed per year.

Results

Of the 100 surgeons invited for the second questionnaire, 74 replied. For the primary outcome, six of 32 surgeons (19%), who usually repaired the PQ muscle and therefore a change of treatment preference was warranted, reported a change of treatment preference based on the RCT publication. Of the secondary outcomes, restoring anatomy was the most common response for repairing the PQ muscle.

Conclusion

The majority of the orthopaedic surgeons, where a change of treatment preference was warranted based on the results and conclusion of a RCT, did not report willingness to change their treatment preference.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:549-555.

Elective surgical referral guidelines--background educational material or essential shared decision making tool? A survey of GPs' in England

Background

To investigate general practitioners' (GPs') attitudes to guidelines for elective surgical referral in England. To understand their use of guidelines, and attitudes to shared decision making in the referral decision.

Methods

A questionnaire was developed which investigated attitudes to and use of guidelines. It was given to a stratified random sample 30% (n = 310) drawn from GP lists of 10 English health districts (primary care trusts (PCTs)). GPs were invited to respond online, by telephone, fax or post. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and backwards stepwise logistic regression.

Results

Responses were representative of GPs in England, but (despite up to 6 contacts per non-responder) the overall response rate was 41.6% (n = 129; with the range across PCTs of 25-61%). Most responding GPs indicated support for referral guidelines but 18% reported that they had never used them. Less than three per cent reported use for most or all referral decisions. The odds of using guidelines decreased with increasing age, with a ten year increase in age associated with halving odds of use (OR = 0.53, 95%CI = 0.29-0.90). Over 50% of GPs wanted good access to electronic guidelines with expert information and advice on guideline availability. Almost all (>89%) GPs agreed with sharing referral decisions with patients. Female doctors (OR = 5.2, 95%CI: 1.02-26.3) were more likely to agree with this than male GPs as were those working in larger compared to small or single handed practices (OR = 5.3, 95%CI: 1.4-19.9).

Conclusions

This group of responding GPs was supportive of guidelines but used them in different ways. Referral guidelines should have an educational component for background reading; include key messages for internalisation and application; and incorporate mechanisms to facilitate accessibility and appropriate shared decision making with patients.

Physicians' knowledge, attitudes and professional use of RCTs and meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Familiarity with Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses is essential to practice Evidence Based Medicine (EBM). The aims of this study were to describe knowledge, attitudes and professional behavior of physicians towards methods to evaluate the efficacy of health interventions, particularly meta-analysis and to find out their possible associated factors.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was carried out on a random sample of Italian physicians through a self-administered questionnaire.

RESULTS

A response rate of 70.1% was achieved (654 questionnaires). Despite satisfactory knowledge and substantial positive attitudes, Italian physicians have not integrated the use of RCTs and meta-analyses into their practice to a large extent, because they infrequently read and use RCTs and meta-analyses to make decisions in clinical practice. There is a high correlation between knowledge, attitudes and professional use of RCTs and meta-analyses. Moreover, the results of our multivariate analysis show that the probability of an appropriate professional use, that is higher for doctors who know the English language, have internet access and dedicate a proper amount of time to continuing medical education, increases significantly with a previous exposure to meta-analysis during graduate/post-graduate training (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.44-3.52), and with the attendance of post-graduate courses about EBM (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.09-2.82). Finally, Italian physicians demonstrate a high level of interest in further training.

CONCLUSIONS

The association between the EBM educational background of doctors and the appropriate professional use of RCTs and meta-analyses suggest that EBM training may promote a more evidence-based practice among physicians.

Physician attitudes towards evidence-based medicine in eastern Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Because of the growing awareness of the limitations of traditional information on clinical decisions, there is a shift in medical practice towards evidence-based medicine (EBM).

METHODS

We assessed physician attitudes towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) in a cross-sectional study of a random sample of physicians in primary health care centers (PHCCs) and general hospitals in the Dammam area of eastern Saudi Arabia. A random sample of 409 physicians was drawn from the population of doctors. The tool of data collection was a self-administered questionnaire. Only physicians who said they had heard about EBM were included in the study.

RESULTS

Only 108 (39.6%) physicians out of those who responded had heard about EBM. Of those, 71 (65.7%) were in favor of EBM and 89 (90.8%) had a positive attitude towards EBM, as they scored above the cut-off point in the questionnaire. Using multiple linear regression, it was found that critical appraisal knowledge and EBM knowledge scores were the only significant predictor variables of EBM attitude score.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There was an overall positive attitude among physicians towards EBM. There was a proportional relation between the knowledge of EBM and attitude towards it. Dissemination of the EBM concept and practice among physicians is highly recommended.

Sources of evidence in HIV/AIDS care: pilot study comparing family physicians and AIDS service organization staff

BACKGROUND

The improvement of the quality of the evidence used in treatment decision-making is especially important in the case of patients with complicated disease processes such as HIV/AIDS for which multiple treatment strategies exist with conflicting reports of efficacy. Little is known about the perceptions of distinct groups of health care workers regarding various sources of evidence and how these influence the clinical decision-making process. Our objective was to investigate how two groups of treatment information providers for people living with HIV/AIDS perceive the importance of various sources of treatment information.

METHODS

Surveys were distributed to staff at two local AIDS service organizations and to family physicians at three community health centres treating people living with HIV/AIDS. Participants were asked to rate the importance of 10 different sources of evidence for HIV/AIDS treatment information on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Mean rating scores and relative rankings were compared.

RESULTS

Findings suggest that a discordance exists between the two health information provider groups in terms of their perceptions of the various sources of evidence. Furthermore, AIDS service organization staff ranked health care professionals as the most important source of information whereas physicians deemed AIDS service organizations to be relatively unimportant. The two groups appear to share a common mistrust for information from pharmaceutical industries.

CONCLUSIONS

Discordance exists between medical "experts" from different backgrounds relating to their perceptions of evidence. Further investigation is warranted in order to reveal any effects on the quality of treatment information and implications in the decision-making process. Possible effects on collaboration and working relationships also warrant further exploration.