Knowledge transfer: what drug information would specialist doctors need to support their clinical practice? Results of a survey and of three focus groups in Italy
Tóm tắt
The wide offer of information on pharmaceuticals does not often fulfill physicians’ needs: problems of relevance, access, quality and applicability are widely recognized, and doctors often rely on their own experience and expert opinions rather than on available evidence. A quali-quantitative research was carried out in Italy to provide an overview on information seeking behavior and information needs of doctors, in particular of infectious disease specialists, and to suggest an action plan for improving relevance, quality and usability of scientific information. We did a quantitative survey and three focus groups. Two hundred infectious disease specialists answered a 24-item questionnaire aimed at investigating features of scientific information they receive and their ratings about its completeness, quality and usability. Subsequent focus groups, each involving eight specialists, investigated their opinions on information sources and materials, and their suggestions on how these could better support their information needs. The quantitative survey indicated doctors’ appreciation of traditional channels (especially drug representatives) and information materials (brochures), but also their attitude to autonomous search of information and their wish to have more digital channels available. Focus groups provided more depth and, not surprisingly, revealed that physicians consider critical to get complete, comparative and specific information quickly, but also that they would like to discuss their doubts with expert colleagues. Quite strikingly, limited concerns were expressed on information validity, potential biases and conflicts of interests, as scientific validity seems to be related to the perceived authoritativeness of information sources rather than to the availability of a transparent evaluation framework. Although this research investigated views of infectious disease specialists, we believe that their opinions and perceived needs should not substantially differ from those of other clinicians, either in primary or in secondary care. In participants’ view, the ideal information framework should provide quick and tailored answers through available evidence and favor the exchange of information between practitioners and trusted experts. The general consensus existing within the scientific and medical community on the need for integrating available evidence and experience is confirmed, although the issues of information validity and conflicts of interests seem definitely overlooked.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Gray JA. Where’s the chief knowledge officer? BMJ. 1998;317:832.
Smith R. What clinical information do doctors need? BMJ. 1996;313:1062–8.
Beck J. Doctors’ #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia. The Atlantic, March 5 2014. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/. Accessed 18 Aug 2016
Avorn J. Healing the Overwhelmed Physician. The New York Times, June 11 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/healing-the-overwhelmed-physician.html?_r=0. Accessed 18 Aug 2016
Formoso G, Marata AM, Magrini N. Social marketing: should it be used to promote evidence-based information? Soc Sci Med. 2006;64:949–53.
Giguère A, Légaré F, Grimshaw J, Turcotte S, Fiander M, Grudniewicz A, et al. Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD004398. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004398.pub3
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2.
Goldman JJ, Shih TL. The Limitations of Evidence-Based Medicine—Applying Population-Based Recommendations to Individual Patients. Virtual Mentor. 2011;13:26–30.
Tonelli MR. In defense of expert opinion. Acad Med. 1999;74:1187–92.
Collier J, Iheanacho I. The pharmaceutical industry as an informant. Lancet. 2002;360:1405–9.
Spurling GK, Mansfield PR, Montgomery BD, Lexchin J, Doust J, Othma N, et al. Information from Pharmaceutical Companies and the Quality, Quantity, and Cost of Physicians’ Prescribing: A Systematic Review. PLoS Med 2010; doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.100035
Dawes M, Sampson U. Knowledge management in clinical practice: a systematic review of information seeking behavior in physicians. Int J Med Inform. 2003;71:9–15.
Revere D, Turner AM, Madhavan A, Rambo N, Bugni PF, Kimball A, Fuller SS. Understanding the information needs of public health practitioners: a literature review to inform design of an interactive digital knowledge management system. J Biomed Inform. 2007;40:410–21.
Davies K. Information Needs and Barriers to Accessing Electronic Information: Hospital-Based Physicians Compared to Primary Care Physicians. J Hosp Librariansh. 2011;11:249–60.
Hay MC, Weisner TS, Subramanian S, Duan N, Niedzinski EJ, Kravitz RL. Harnessing experience: exploring the gap between evidence-based medicine and clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:707–13.
Oliveri RS, Gluud C, Wille-Jørgensen PA. Hospital doctors’ self-rated skills in and use of evidence-based medicine – a questionnaire survey. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004;10:219–26.
Shuval K, Shachak A, Linn S, Brezis M, Reis S. Evaluating primary care doctors’ evidence-based medicine skills in a busy clinical setting. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:576–80.
Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e138.
Flodgren G, Parmelli E, Doumit G, Gattellari M, O’Brien MA, Grimshaw J, Eccles MP. Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD000125. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000125.pub4
Isaacs D, Fitzgerald D. Seven alternatives to evidence based medicine. BMJ. 1999;319:1618.
Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7:50.
Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N, for the Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ. 2014;348:g3725.
Woolf S, Schünemann HJ, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P. Developing clinical practice guidelines: types of evidence and outcomes; values and economics, synthesis, grading, and presentation and deriving recommendations. Implement Sci. 2012;7:61.
Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P, Schünemann HJ, Woolf S. Developing clinical practice guidelines: target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implement Sci. 2012;7:60.
Timmermans S, Mauck A. The Promises And Pitfalls Of Evidence-Based Medicine. Health Aff. 2005;245:18–28.
Norris SL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Burda BU. Conflict of Interest in Clinical Practice Guideline Development: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(10):e25153. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025153.
Guyatt G, Akl EA, Hirsh J, Kearon C, Crowther M, Gutterman D, et al. The vexing problem of guidelines and conflict of interest: a potential solution. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:738–41.
Gabriel SE, Normand SLT. Getting the Methods Right — The Foundation of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:787–90.
Liberati A. Need to realign patient-oriented and commercial and academic research. Lancet. 2011;378:1777–8.
Partridge N, Scadding J. The James Lind Alliance: patients and clinicians should jointly identify their priorities for clinical trials. Lancet. 2004;364:1923–4.
Ministero della Salute. Decreto 8 febbraio 2013. Criteri per la composizione e il funzionamento dei comitati etici. http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2013/04/24/13A03474/sg. Accessed 18 Aug 2016