Cited by 77Clinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and Education

Enhancing Physician Adoption of Practice Guidelines: Dissemination of Influenza Vaccination Guideline Using a Small-Group Consensus Process

Karuza, Jurgis·1995·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A dissemination intervention to facilitate adoption of a preventive practice guideline (influenza vaccination for older adults) in group practices was developed and evaluated. The intervention, small-group consensus process, started with a physician expert presenting the guideline and followed with the group participating in a structured discussion of ways to implement the guideline that culminated in a public commitment (ie, "buy in") to adopt the guideline. METHODS: Thirteen group practices and their primary care physicians (mean size, 5) were assigned randomly to intervention or control arms. In each group practice, physicians in the intervention arm met for 1 hour. Control physicians participated in an unrelated discussion (non-steroidal drug use). Guideline adoption was determined by changes in physicians' vaccination rates that were obtained through prechart and postchart reviews of 51 physicians. Prequestionnaires and postquestionnaires measured influenza knowledge and prevention attitudes. RESULTS: Using analysis of covariance, the small-group consensus process was found to increase physician vaccination rates by 34% compared with the control arm (F (1,48) = 19.49). All intervention arm physicians increased vaccination rates from before to after compared with 54% of control arm physicians. Attitudes and knowledge did not change and were unrelated to increased vaccination rates. CONCLUSIONS: A case is made for the small-group consensus process as an effective utilization-focused dissemination method. Interventions based on group dynamics and sensitive to local practice contexts can be useful in facilitating adoption of guidelines by physicians in group practices.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.1995.00430060089011

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karuza, J.
Affiliations
University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Karuza, Jurgis
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
1995-03-27
Volume
155
Issue
6
Pages
625
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007141084
Cited by
77
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3
FWCI
6.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (240-90-0046)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
influenza vaccination, older adults, group practice, primary care physicians, physician buy-in, vaccination coverage, preventive medicine, group dynamics
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Group Practice, Humans, Influenza Vaccines, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Medical Records, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Surveys and Questionnaires, Vaccination, Practice Guidelines as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review