Display options
Cite
Lawson G, Basch CH, Zybert P, et al. Acceptability of Physician Directed Academic Detailing to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening: an Application of the RESPECT Approach. Health Promot Perspect. 2015;5(3):169-75doi: 10.15171/hpp.2015.020.
Lawson, G., Basch, C. H., Zybert, P., Wolf, R. L., & Basch, C. E. (2015). Acceptability of Physician Directed Academic Detailing to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening: an Application of the RESPECT Approach. Health promotion perspectives, 5(3), 169-75. https://doi.org/10.15171/hpp.2015.020
Lawson, Gwen, et al. "Acceptability of Physician Directed Academic Detailing to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening: an Application of the RESPECT Approach." Health promotion perspectives vol. 5,3 (2015): 169-75. doi: https://doi.org/10.15171/hpp.2015.020
Lawson G, Basch CH, Zybert P, Wolf RL, Basch CE. Acceptability of Physician Directed Academic Detailing to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening: an Application of the RESPECT Approach. Health Promot Perspect. 2015 Oct 25;5(3):169-75. doi: 10.15171/hpp.2015.020. eCollection 2015. PMID: 26634194; PMCID: PMC4667256.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Health Promot Perspect. 2015 Oct 25;5(3):169-75. doi: 10.15171/hpp.2015.020. eCollection 2015.

Acceptability of Physician Directed Academic Detailing to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening: an Application of the RESPECT Approach.

Health promotion perspectives

Gwen Lawson, Corey H Basch, Patricia Zybert, Randi L Wolf, Charles E Basch

Affiliations

  1. Department of Health and Behavior Studies, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA.
  2. Department of Public Health, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ 07470, USA.

PMID: 26634194 PMCID: PMC4667256 DOI: 10.15171/hpp.2015.020

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In developing effective interventions to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in at risk populations, a necessary first requirement is feasibility. This paper describes how the RESPECT approach to health education guided the conceptualization and implementation of physician-directed academic detailing (AD) to increase practice-wide CRC screening uptake.

METHODS: Physician-directed AD was one intervention component in a large educational randomized controlled trial to increase CRC screening uptake. Study participants, primarily urban minority, were aged 50 or older, insured for CRC screening with no out-of-pocket expense and out of compliance with current screening recommendations. The trial was conducted in the New York City metropolitan area. Participants identified their primary care physician; 564 individuals were recruited, representing 459 physician practices. Two-thirds of the physician practices were randomized to receive AD. The RESPECT approach, modified for AD, comprises: 1) Rapport, 2) Educate, but don't overwhelm, 3) Start with physicians where they are, 4) Philosophical orientation based on a humanistic approach to education, 5) Engagement of the physician and his/her office staff, 6) Care and show empathy, and 7) Trust. Feasibility was assessed as rate of AD delivery.

RESULTS: The AD was delivered to 283 (92.5%) of the 306 practices assigned to receive it; 222/283 (78.4%) delivered to the doctor.

CONCLUSION: The AD was feasible and acceptable to implement across a range of clinical settings. The RESPECT approach offers a framework for tailoring educational efforts, allowing flexibility, as opposed to strict adherence to a highly structured script or a universal approach.

Keywords: Academic detailing; Colonoscopy; Colorectal cancer; Screening

References

  1. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009 Jan-Feb;59(1):27-41 - PubMed
  2. J Community Health. 2015 Oct;40(5):975-83 - PubMed
  3. Arch Intern Med. 2009 Feb 23;169(4):364-71 - PubMed
  4. Fam Pract. 2000 Dec;17(6):535-40 - PubMed
  5. Am J Public Health. 2003 Aug;93(8):1268-71 - PubMed
  6. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008 May-Jun;58(3):130-60 - PubMed
  7. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010 Jul 9;59(26):808-12 - PubMed
  8. Am J Public Health. 2006 Dec;96(12):2246-53 - PubMed
  9. Am J Prev Med. 2000 Oct;19(3):149-54 - PubMed
  10. Cancer. 2010 Feb 1;116(3):544-73 - PubMed
  11. N Engl J Med. 2012 Feb 23;366(8):687-96 - PubMed
  12. Prev Med. 2005 Jul;41(1):23-9 - PubMed
  13. J Natl Med Assoc. 2003 Sep;95(9):806-12 - PubMed
  14. N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 17;361(12 ):1179-87 - PubMed
  15. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Dec;22(12):1681-8 - PubMed
  16. N Engl J Med. 1993 May 13;328(19):1365-71 - PubMed
  17. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Aug;102(8):1727-35 - PubMed

Publication Types