Display options
Share it on

J Oncol Pract. 2011 Jul;7(4):257-62. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2010.000195.

Dissemination of Quality-of-Care Research Findings to Breast Oncology Surgeons.

Journal of oncology practice

Stacey Shiovitz, Ashley Gay, Arden Morris, John J Graff, Steven J Katz, Sarah T Hawley

Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of General Medicine; Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Ann Arbor Veteran's Health Care System, Ann Arbor, MI; Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ.

PMID: 22043192 PMCID: PMC3140450 DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2010.000195

Abstract

PURPOSE: In this era of rapidly evolving clinical knowledge, clinicians need to be aware of current research and how it might affect their practice. The Internet is a widely available, under-assessed tool for providing this information. In this two-phase pilot study, a novel Web site (www.cansortsurgeons.org) was developed to specifically disseminate relevant clinical information to community breast oncology surgeons.

METHODS: The first phase targeted a sample of community surgeons identified from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results catchment areas in Los Angeles, CA and Detroit, MI. The second phase broadened availability by linking the site through the American College of Surgeons (ACoS) Commission on Cancer (CoC) homepage. An eight-question, Web-based survey was used to obtain feedback regarding the Web site's utility and potential application to clinical practice. Journal continuing medical education credit was also offered through ACoS.

RESULTS: For phase 1, of the 315 community surgeons invited to view the site, 114 (36%) participated in the study and 98 (86%) responded to the survey. Overall, there was a strongly supportive response, with 79 (81%) recommending the site to other clinicians. For phase 2, of the 516 site hits, 411 came from the ACoS site. Only 10 individuals completed the survey during this phase, but all positively endorsed the utility of the site.

CONCLUSION: The implication for clinical practice is that the Internet is a useful tool for providing relevant clinical research to providers. In the future, this could be tailored to an individual's needs, aiding synthesis and, hopefully, improving the quality of clinical care.

References

  1. Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 05;4:49 - PubMed
  2. Med Care. 2010 Oct;48(10):892-9 - PubMed
  3. Praxis (Bern 1994). 2000 Oct 19;89(42):1700-6 - PubMed
  4. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Feb;59(2):93 - PubMed
  5. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jul 16;(3):CD004398 - PubMed
  6. JAMA. 1999 Oct 20;282(15):1458-65 - PubMed
  7. Med Teach. 2009 Aug;31(8):e333-7 - PubMed
  8. J Med Internet Res. 2007 Sep 30;9(3):e25 - PubMed
  9. Br J Gen Pract. 1998 Feb;48(427):991-7 - PubMed
  10. Health Technol Assess. 2004 Feb;8(6):iii-iv, 1-72 - PubMed
  11. Cancer Causes Control. 2009 May;20(4):473-85 - PubMed
  12. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21 Suppl 2:S14-20 - PubMed
  13. Am J Health Promot. 2004 Jan-Feb;18(3):iv-v - PubMed
  14. Am J Public Health. 2003 Aug;93(8):1261-7 - PubMed
  15. Eval Rev. 2009 Oct;33(5):464-80 - PubMed
  16. Can Oncol Nurs J. 2007 Fall;17(4):206-18 - PubMed
  17. Med Care. 2010 Jan;48(1):45-51 - PubMed
  18. Cancer. 2005 Nov 1;104(9):1854-61 - PubMed
  19. BMJ. 1998 Aug 15;317(7156):465-8 - PubMed
  20. BMC Fam Pract. 2004 Nov 30;5:27 - PubMed
  21. Health Psychol. 2005 Sep;24(5):443-6 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support