The impact of reading on physicians' nonadherence to recommended standards of medical care

Stuart J. Cohen, Morris Weinberger, Siu Hui, William M. Tierney, Clement J. McDonald

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In order to increase physicians' adherence to recommended standards of medical care and to examine factors presumed to contribute to such changes, we conducted a randomized, controlled trial using reading materials targeted to specific practice recommendations. Seventy-nine internal medicine residents completed baseline questionnaires stating their intentions to follow 13 common preventive care actions. They were randomly assigned to receive one of two different sets of readings covering these care actions. Thus, each physician was in the experimental group for one set of readings (A or B) while serving as a control for the other set. The impact of the reading was determined by: the physicians' knowledge of the recommended care actions detailed in the combined readings, their post-reading intentions, and clinical behavior when faced with patients having indications for the recommended actions. The 73 residents (92%) who read the material judged 39% of the information to be new and 72% useful. Residents had significantly better performance on the knowledge questions based on their own readings than did their control group peers for both sets of readings. For the Group A physicians, reading significantly (P < 0.05) increased intentions to follow one of the seven clinical actions while Group B residents increased their intentions in three out of six. Step-wise multiple regression analyses were used to predict physicians' post-reading adherence to the recommended actions. For the Group A actions, pre-reading actions accounted for most of the variance in their post-reading actions. Adherence to the Group B recommended actions was a function of an interaction between the physicians' baseline actions and access to the appropriate readings. Thus, the overall effect of this educational intervention was modest at best, and physicians who tended to follow the recommended actions more frequently than their peers before the reading became even more adherent after having read their materials.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)909-914
Number of pages6
JournalSocial Science and Medicine
Volume21
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - 1985

Fingerprint

Standard of Care
medical care
Reading
physician
Physicians
medicine
multiple regression
resident
material
Medical care
Medical Care
Group
Preventive Medicine
peer group
Internal Medicine
effect
action group
recommendation
trial
indication

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Social Psychology
  • Development
  • Health(social science)

Cite this

The impact of reading on physicians' nonadherence to recommended standards of medical care. / Cohen, Stuart J.; Weinberger, Morris; Hui, Siu; Tierney, William M.; McDonald, Clement J.

In: Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 21, No. 8, 1985, p. 909-914.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cohen, Stuart J. ; Weinberger, Morris ; Hui, Siu ; Tierney, William M. ; McDonald, Clement J. / The impact of reading on physicians' nonadherence to recommended standards of medical care. In: Social Science and Medicine. 1985 ; Vol. 21, No. 8. pp. 909-914.
@article{5919d00694be4785b1da2f6687557dda,
title = "The impact of reading on physicians' nonadherence to recommended standards of medical care",
abstract = "In order to increase physicians' adherence to recommended standards of medical care and to examine factors presumed to contribute to such changes, we conducted a randomized, controlled trial using reading materials targeted to specific practice recommendations. Seventy-nine internal medicine residents completed baseline questionnaires stating their intentions to follow 13 common preventive care actions. They were randomly assigned to receive one of two different sets of readings covering these care actions. Thus, each physician was in the experimental group for one set of readings (A or B) while serving as a control for the other set. The impact of the reading was determined by: the physicians' knowledge of the recommended care actions detailed in the combined readings, their post-reading intentions, and clinical behavior when faced with patients having indications for the recommended actions. The 73 residents (92{\%}) who read the material judged 39{\%} of the information to be new and 72{\%} useful. Residents had significantly better performance on the knowledge questions based on their own readings than did their control group peers for both sets of readings. For the Group A physicians, reading significantly (P < 0.05) increased intentions to follow one of the seven clinical actions while Group B residents increased their intentions in three out of six. Step-wise multiple regression analyses were used to predict physicians' post-reading adherence to the recommended actions. For the Group A actions, pre-reading actions accounted for most of the variance in their post-reading actions. Adherence to the Group B recommended actions was a function of an interaction between the physicians' baseline actions and access to the appropriate readings. Thus, the overall effect of this educational intervention was modest at best, and physicians who tended to follow the recommended actions more frequently than their peers before the reading became even more adherent after having read their materials.",
author = "Cohen, {Stuart J.} and Morris Weinberger and Siu Hui and Tierney, {William M.} and McDonald, {Clement J.}",
year = "1985",
doi = "10.1016/0277-9536(85)90147-9",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "909--914",
journal = "Social Science and Medicine",
issn = "0277-9536",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The impact of reading on physicians' nonadherence to recommended standards of medical care

AU - Cohen, Stuart J.

AU - Weinberger, Morris

AU - Hui, Siu

AU - Tierney, William M.

AU - McDonald, Clement J.

PY - 1985

Y1 - 1985

N2 - In order to increase physicians' adherence to recommended standards of medical care and to examine factors presumed to contribute to such changes, we conducted a randomized, controlled trial using reading materials targeted to specific practice recommendations. Seventy-nine internal medicine residents completed baseline questionnaires stating their intentions to follow 13 common preventive care actions. They were randomly assigned to receive one of two different sets of readings covering these care actions. Thus, each physician was in the experimental group for one set of readings (A or B) while serving as a control for the other set. The impact of the reading was determined by: the physicians' knowledge of the recommended care actions detailed in the combined readings, their post-reading intentions, and clinical behavior when faced with patients having indications for the recommended actions. The 73 residents (92%) who read the material judged 39% of the information to be new and 72% useful. Residents had significantly better performance on the knowledge questions based on their own readings than did their control group peers for both sets of readings. For the Group A physicians, reading significantly (P < 0.05) increased intentions to follow one of the seven clinical actions while Group B residents increased their intentions in three out of six. Step-wise multiple regression analyses were used to predict physicians' post-reading adherence to the recommended actions. For the Group A actions, pre-reading actions accounted for most of the variance in their post-reading actions. Adherence to the Group B recommended actions was a function of an interaction between the physicians' baseline actions and access to the appropriate readings. Thus, the overall effect of this educational intervention was modest at best, and physicians who tended to follow the recommended actions more frequently than their peers before the reading became even more adherent after having read their materials.

AB - In order to increase physicians' adherence to recommended standards of medical care and to examine factors presumed to contribute to such changes, we conducted a randomized, controlled trial using reading materials targeted to specific practice recommendations. Seventy-nine internal medicine residents completed baseline questionnaires stating their intentions to follow 13 common preventive care actions. They were randomly assigned to receive one of two different sets of readings covering these care actions. Thus, each physician was in the experimental group for one set of readings (A or B) while serving as a control for the other set. The impact of the reading was determined by: the physicians' knowledge of the recommended care actions detailed in the combined readings, their post-reading intentions, and clinical behavior when faced with patients having indications for the recommended actions. The 73 residents (92%) who read the material judged 39% of the information to be new and 72% useful. Residents had significantly better performance on the knowledge questions based on their own readings than did their control group peers for both sets of readings. For the Group A physicians, reading significantly (P < 0.05) increased intentions to follow one of the seven clinical actions while Group B residents increased their intentions in three out of six. Step-wise multiple regression analyses were used to predict physicians' post-reading adherence to the recommended actions. For the Group A actions, pre-reading actions accounted for most of the variance in their post-reading actions. Adherence to the Group B recommended actions was a function of an interaction between the physicians' baseline actions and access to the appropriate readings. Thus, the overall effect of this educational intervention was modest at best, and physicians who tended to follow the recommended actions more frequently than their peers before the reading became even more adherent after having read their materials.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0022402431&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0022402431&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0277-9536(85)90147-9

DO - 10.1016/0277-9536(85)90147-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 4071124

AN - SCOPUS:0022402431

VL - 21

SP - 909

EP - 914

JO - Social Science and Medicine

JF - Social Science and Medicine

SN - 0277-9536

IS - 8

ER -