The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on Physician Practice
Abstract
The effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on physician behavior were investigated. The medical records of 2770 patients treated in ten hospitals throughout the state of Washington were reviewed to determine if quality of care improved with respect to 12 recommendations put forth by four consensus panels concerning surgical management of primary breast cancer, the use of steroid receptors in breast cancer, cesarean childbirth, and coronary artery bypass surgery. Care was studied during 24 months before and 13 to 24 months after each consensus conference. Results showed that the conferences mostly failed to stimulate change in physician practice, despite moderate success in reaching the appropriate target audience. It was concluded that the consensus development conference is an important educational tool whose effects might be enhanced by focusing on areas of practice that need improvement and by encouraging follow-up programs at the state and local level.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines?: A Framework for Improvement
Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P.-A. C., & Rubin, H. R. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.15.1458 · Cited by 6,677
Anderson, F. A. (1994) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.1994.00420060103011 · Cited by 156
Task force 8. Organization of preventive cardiology service
Pearson, T. A., McBride, P. E., Miller, N. H., & Smith, S. C. (1996) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/0735-1097(96)87736-9 · Cited by 110
Karuza, J. (1995) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.1995.00430060089011 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Kosecoff, J.
- Venue
- JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1987-11-20
- Volume
- 258
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 2708
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2013223472
- Cited by
- 406
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
