Display options
Cite
Yeh JS, Van Hoof TJ, Fischer MA. Key Features of Academic Detailing: Development of an Expert Consensus Using the Delphi Method. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2016;9(1):42-50
Yeh, J. S., Van Hoof, T. J., & Fischer, M. A. (2016). Key Features of Academic Detailing: Development of an Expert Consensus Using the Delphi Method. American health & drug benefits, 9(1), 42-50.
Yeh, James S, et al. "Key Features of Academic Detailing: Development of an Expert Consensus Using the Delphi Method." American health & drug benefits vol. 9,1 (2016): 42-50.
Yeh JS, Van Hoof TJ, Fischer MA. Key Features of Academic Detailing: Development of an Expert Consensus Using the Delphi Method. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2016 Feb;9(1):42-50. PMID: 27066195; PMCID: PMC4822978.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Am Health Drug Benefits. 2016 Feb;9(1):42-50.

Key Features of Academic Detailing: Development of an Expert Consensus Using the Delphi Method.

American health & drug benefits

James S Yeh, Thomas J Van Hoof, Michael A Fischer

Affiliations

  1. Research Fellow, Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and a Clinical Fellow, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
  2. Associate Professor, University of Connecticut School of Nursing, Storrs, CT, and Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine and Health Care, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT.
  3. Director, National Resource Center for Academic Detailing, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

PMID: 27066195 PMCID: PMC4822978

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Academic detailing is an outreach education technique that combines the direct social marketing traditionally used by pharmaceutical representatives with unbiased content summarizing the best evidence for a given clinical issue. Academic detailing is conducted with clinicians to encourage evidence-based practice in order to improve the quality of care and patient outcomes. The adoption of academic detailing has increased substantially since the original studies in the 1980s. However, the lack of standard agreement on its implementation makes the evaluation of academic detailing outcomes challenging.

OBJECTIVE: To identify consensus on the key elements of academic detailing among a group of experts with varying experiences in academic detailing.

METHODS: This study is based on an online survey of 20 experts with experience in academic detailing. We used the Delphi process, an iterative and systematic method of developing consensus within a group. We conducted 3 rounds of online surveys, which addressed 72 individual items derived from a previous literature review of 5 features of academic detailing, including (1) content, (2) communication process, (3) clinicians targeted, (4) change agents delivering intervention, and (5) context for intervention. Nonrespondents were removed from later rounds of the surveys. For most questions, a 4-point ordinal scale was used for responses. We defined consensus agreement as 70% of respondents for a single rating category or 80% for dichotomized ratings.

RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 95% (54 of 57 surveys) and nearly 92% consensus agreement on the survey items (66 of 72 items) by the end of the Delphi exercise. The experts' responses suggested that (1) focused clinician education offering support for clinical decision-making is a key component of academic detailing, (2) detailing messages need to be tailored and provide feasible strategies and solutions to challenging cases, and (3) academic detailers need to develop specific skill sets required to overcome barriers to changing clinician behavior.

CONCLUSION: Consensus derived from this Delphi exercise can serve as a useful template of general principles in academic detailing initiatives and evaluation. The study findings are limited by the lack of standard definitions of certain terms used in the Delphi process.

Keywords: Delphi method; academic detailing; clinician behavior; educational outreach; expert consensus; health professions education

References

  1. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2014 Winter;34(1):83-6 - PubMed
  2. J Clin Pharm Ther. 1997 Apr;22(2):147-53 - PubMed
  3. N Engl J Med. 1992 Jul 16;327(3):168-73 - PubMed
  4. Am J Med Qual. 2013 Nov-Dec;28(6):480-4 - PubMed
  5. Am J Med Sci. 2014 Jun;347(6):472-7 - PubMed
  6. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2016 Feb;9(1):42-50 - PubMed
  7. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992;1(Suppl 1):45-8 - PubMed
  8. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2015 Nov;8(8):414-22 - PubMed
  9. Am J Prev Med. 2015 May;48(5):575-9 - PubMed
  10. Am J Public Health. 1984 Sep;74(9):979-83 - PubMed
  11. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Winter;16(1):e103-25 - PubMed
  12. JAMA. 1990 Jan 26;263(4):549-56 - PubMed
  13. Am J Manag Care. 2012 Aug 01;18(8):e307-14 - PubMed
  14. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Oct 17;(4):CD000409 - PubMed
  15. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Jun;33(6):1014-23 - PubMed
  16. CMAJ. 2007 Feb 13;176(4):429-31 - PubMed
  17. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2013;16(4):511-29 - PubMed
  18. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Jan;35(1):150-60 - PubMed
  19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 07;(7):CD005188 - PubMed
  20. Can Pharm J (Ott). 2012 May;145(3):142-146.e2 - PubMed
  21. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Jul 1;192(1):40-6 - PubMed
  22. Med Care. 2014 Apr;52(4):291-3 - PubMed
  23. PLoS Med. 2010 Oct 19;7(10):e1000352 - PubMed
  24. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1996 Nov;22(11):734-50 - PubMed
  25. N Engl J Med. 1983 Jun 16;308(24):1457-63 - PubMed
  26. Am J Hypertens. 2003 Jun;16(6):508-11 - PubMed
  27. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Oct;31(10):2206-12 - PubMed
  28. Am J Med Qual. 2012 Nov-Dec;27(6):467-71 - PubMed
  29. J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Oct;28(10):1368-75 - PubMed
  30. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Jan;35(1):8-11 - PubMed
  31. Soc Stud Sci. 2004 Apr;34(2):271-92 - PubMed
  32. Can Fam Physician. 2014 Jan;60(1):e16-23 - PubMed

Publication Types