Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 321

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Techniques to Improve Physicians' Use of Diagnostic Tests: A New Conceptual Framework

Solomon, Daniel H., Hashimoto, Hideki, Daltroy, Lawren, Liang, Matthew H.·1998·JAMA

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To review the published literature on interventions aimed at improving physicians' testing practices and propose methodologic standards for these studies and to review selected studies using the PRECEDE framework, a behavioral model that helps categorize interventions based on which behavioral factors are being affected. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and HEALTHStar databases were searched for the years 1966 to January 1, 1998, for English-language articles pertaining to diagnostic testing behavior; bibliographies were scanned to identify articles of potential interest; and researchers in health services, health behavior, and behavior modification were contacted for proprietary and other unpublished articles. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 102 articles were identified that described the results of interventions aimed at changing physicians' testing practices. We included the 49 studies that compared diagnostic testing practices in intervention and control groups. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently reviewed each article in a blinded fashion using a standard data collection form to obtain a methodologic score and to abstract the key elements of each intervention. DATA SYNTHESIS: On a 38-point methodologic criteria scale, the mean +/- SD score was 13+/-4.4. The desired behavior change was reported in the intervention group in 37 (76%) of 49 studies. Twenty-four (86%) of 28 interventions targeted at many behavioral factors were successful, while 13 (62%) of 21 studies aimed at a single behavioral factor were successful (P=.12). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of interventions to improve physicians' testing practices reported in the literature claimed success, with interventions based on multiple behavioral factors trending toward being more successful. While methodologic flaws hamper drawing strong conclusions from this literature, application of a behavioral framework appears to be useful in explaining interventions that are successful and can facilitate interpretation of intervention results.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.280.23.2020

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 321

Metadata

Authors
Solomon, D. H., Hashimoto, H., Daltroy, L., & Liang, M. H.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1998-12-16
Volume
280
Issue
23
Pages
2020
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1990307331
Cited by
321
References
4
FWCI
38.91
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.