↓ Skip to main content

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…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
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
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2797-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sibyl Anthierens, Veronique Verhoeven, Olivier Schmitz, Samuel Coenen

Abstract

Continuous medical education strategies, including academic detailing (AD), have mixed effects on the quality of prescribing in general practice. Alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) to assess the effectiveness of AD visits (on appropriate prescribing of analgesics for chronic pain in osteoarthritis) by Farmaka, an independent drug information center, we performed a process evaluation to identify possible barriers and success factors to improve these AD visits, both from the perspective of the academic detailers delivering the visits and the general practitioners (GPs) receiving them. We performed semi-structured interviews with 20 GPs who participated in the cRCT and 13 academic detailers. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. GPs viewed AD visits as a practical and useful CME strategy, that is less time consuming than other CME activities, and the visitors as providers of objective and independent information relevant to their daily practice with whom they can have meaningful discussion. Academic detailers saw themselves as content experts, mainly informing GPs about the topic and not emphasizing on behavior change. Both GPs and academic detailers believed that the AD visits could have better interaction and discussion if performed in small groups. According to the GPs, the visits on analgesic use provided some new and relevant information as well as clarifying some misconceptions. They increased awareness of the disadvantages of particular non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and of the lower doses of paracetamol that should be prescribed for chronic use, which may have changed their beliefs and/or attitudes towards more appropriate prescribing for osteoarthritis. However, the transfer of knowledge into practice was seen as not so straightforward. GPs view AD visits as a credible and interesting way of CME that enhances their knowledge and increases reflection on their prescribing behavior.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Researcher 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 15%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 18 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2018.
All research outputs
#13,225,036
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,444
of 7,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,595
of 440,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#104
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.