Changing or validating physician opioid prescribing behaviors through audit and feedback and academic detailing interventions in primary care.

Implementation research and practice Pub Date : 2025-01-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26334895241307638
Celia Laur, Natasha Kithulegoda, Nicola McCleary, Emily Nicholas Angl, Michael Strange, Barbara Sklar, Thivja Sribaskaran, Gail Dobell, Sharon Gushue, Jonathan M C Lam, Lindsay Bevan, Victoria Burton, Lena Salach, Justin Presseau, Laura Desveaux, Noah Ivers
{"title":"Changing or validating physician opioid prescribing behaviors through audit and feedback and academic detailing interventions in primary care.","authors":"Celia Laur, Natasha Kithulegoda, Nicola McCleary, Emily Nicholas Angl, Michael Strange, Barbara Sklar, Thivja Sribaskaran, Gail Dobell, Sharon Gushue, Jonathan M C Lam, Lindsay Bevan, Victoria Burton, Lena Salach, Justin Presseau, Laura Desveaux, Noah Ivers","doi":"10.1177/26334895241307638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In Ontario, Canada, province-wide initiatives supporting safer opioid prescribing in primary care include voluntary audit and feedback reports and academic detailing. In this process evaluation, we aimed to determine the fidelity of delivery and receipt of the interventions, the observed change strategies used by physicians, potential mechanisms of action, and how complementary the initiatives can be to each other.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with academic detailers and with physicians who received both interventions. Academic detailer interviews were coded using the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy; physician interviews were coded to the Theoretical Domain Framework. Change strategies were summarized based on academic detailer intentions and physician-reported practice changes. Potential mechanisms of action were identified using the Theories and Techniques Tool and the literature. Patient partners informed the interpretation of results through ongoing group discussions of preliminary findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Interviews were conducted with eight academic detailers and 12 physicians. Change strategies described by academic detailers to support physicians' opioid prescribing included <i>problem solving</i>, <i>instructions on how to perform the behavior</i>, <i>adding objects to the environment</i>, <i>credible source</i>, <i>shaping knowledge</i>, and <i>social support.</i> Physicians mentioned that academic detailing validated current opioid practices or increased their <i>belief about capabilities</i> and their <i>intentions</i>, mediated by increased <i>skills</i> and the impact of <i>environmental context and resources</i>. Potential mechanisms of action included <i>behavioral regulation</i>, <i>behavioral cueing</i>, and <i>general attitudes/beliefs.</i> On its own, receiving the audit and feedback report did not lead to changes in beliefs about prescribing practices; however, for some physicians, it provided validation and reassurance. Physicians saw unrealized potential for complementarity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>New interventions are often implemented in a complex ecosystem with other competing interventions. In this study, we show how examining the fidelity of the intervention from initial design through to delivery can identify opportunities for potential optimization.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":"6 ","pages":"26334895241307638"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11705341/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895241307638","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In Ontario, Canada, province-wide initiatives supporting safer opioid prescribing in primary care include voluntary audit and feedback reports and academic detailing. In this process evaluation, we aimed to determine the fidelity of delivery and receipt of the interventions, the observed change strategies used by physicians, potential mechanisms of action, and how complementary the initiatives can be to each other.

Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with academic detailers and with physicians who received both interventions. Academic detailer interviews were coded using the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy; physician interviews were coded to the Theoretical Domain Framework. Change strategies were summarized based on academic detailer intentions and physician-reported practice changes. Potential mechanisms of action were identified using the Theories and Techniques Tool and the literature. Patient partners informed the interpretation of results through ongoing group discussions of preliminary findings.

Results: Interviews were conducted with eight academic detailers and 12 physicians. Change strategies described by academic detailers to support physicians' opioid prescribing included problem solving, instructions on how to perform the behavior, adding objects to the environment, credible source, shaping knowledge, and social support. Physicians mentioned that academic detailing validated current opioid practices or increased their belief about capabilities and their intentions, mediated by increased skills and the impact of environmental context and resources. Potential mechanisms of action included behavioral regulation, behavioral cueing, and general attitudes/beliefs. On its own, receiving the audit and feedback report did not lead to changes in beliefs about prescribing practices; however, for some physicians, it provided validation and reassurance. Physicians saw unrealized potential for complementarity.

Conclusions: New interventions are often implemented in a complex ecosystem with other competing interventions. In this study, we show how examining the fidelity of the intervention from initial design through to delivery can identify opportunities for potential optimization.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过审计和反馈以及初级保健中的学术详细干预措施改变或验证医生阿片类药物处方行为。
背景:在加拿大安大略省,全省范围内支持初级保健中更安全的阿片类药物处方的举措包括自愿审计和反馈报告以及学术细节。在这个过程评估中,我们的目的是确定提供和接受干预措施的保真度,观察到的医生使用的改变策略,潜在的行动机制,以及这些举措如何相互补充。方法:与接受两种干预措施的学术详细人员和医生进行半结构化访谈。使用行为改变技术分类法对学术细节访谈进行编码;医生访谈被编码到理论领域框架中。改变策略的总结基于学术细节的意图和医生报告的实践变化。使用理论和技术工具和文献确定了潜在的作用机制。通过对初步发现的持续小组讨论,患者伴侣告知对结果的解释。结果:对8名学术详细人员和12名医生进行了访谈。学术细节学家描述了支持医生开具阿片类药物处方的改变策略,包括解决问题、指导如何执行行为、向环境中添加对象、可靠来源、塑造知识和社会支持。医生们提到,学术细节验证了目前的阿片类药物实践,或者增加了他们对能力和意图的信念,通过提高技能和环境背景和资源的影响来调节。潜在的作用机制包括行为调节、行为暗示和一般态度/信念。就其本身而言,接受审计和反馈报告并未导致对处方做法的信念发生变化;然而,对于一些医生来说,它提供了验证和保证。医生们看到了尚未实现的互补潜力。结论:新的干预措施通常在复杂的生态系统中与其他竞争性干预措施一起实施。在本研究中,我们展示了如何检查从初始设计到交付的干预的保真度可以识别潜在优化的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Not getting better but not getting worse: A cluster randomized controlled pilot trial of a leadership implementation strategy. The effect of caregiver opinion leaders to increase demand for evidence-based practices for youth anxiety: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Dissemination through trusted credible messengers: 133 weeks of the Flint Community Webinar on COVID-19. Changing or validating physician opioid prescribing behaviors through audit and feedback and academic detailing interventions in primary care. Formative evaluation of the implementation of digital therapeutics for opioids and other substance use disorders in primary care (DIGITS trial).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1