Cited by 1,070Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

Open access
Flodgren, Gerd, Parmelli, Elena, Doumit, Gaby, Gattellari, Melina, O'Brien, Mary Ann, Grimshaw, Jeremy, Eccles, Martin P·2011·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice is not always evidence-based and, therefore, may not optimise patient outcomes. Opinion leaders disseminating and implementing 'best evidence' is one method that holds promise as a strategy to bridge evidence-practice gaps. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of the use of local opinion leaders in improving professional practice and patient outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane EPOC Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, ISI Conference Proceedings and World Cat Dissertations up to 5 May 2009. In addition, we searched reference lists of included articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies eligible for inclusion were randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of using opinion leaders to disseminate evidence-based practice and reporting objective measures of professional performance and/or health outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from each study and assessed its risk of bias. For each trial, we calculated the median risk difference (RD) for compliance with desired practice, adjusting for baseline where data were available. We reported the median adjusted RD for each of the main comparisons. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies involving more than 296 hospitals and 318 PCPs. Fifteen studies (18 comparisons) contributed to the calculations of the median adjusted RD for the main comparisons. The effects of interventions varied across the 63 outcomes from 15% decrease in compliance to 72% increase in compliance with desired practice. The median adjusted RD for the main comparisons were: i) Opinion leaders compared to no intervention, +0.09; ii) Opinion leaders alone compared to a single intervention, +0.14; iii) Opinion leaders with one or more additional intervention(s) compared to the one or more additional intervention(s), +0.10; iv) Opinion leaders as part of multiple interventions compared to no intervention, +0.10. Overall, across all 18 studies the median adjusted RD was +0.12 representing a 12% absolute increase in compliance in the intervention group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Opinion leaders alone or in combination with other interventions may successfully promote evidence-based practice, but effectiveness varies both within and between studies. These results are based on heterogeneous studies differing in terms of type of intervention, setting, and outcomes measured. In most of the studies the role of the opinion leader was not clearly described, and it is therefore not possible to say what the best way is to optimise the effectiveness of opinion leaders.

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 · 10.1002/14651858.cd000125.pub4

Cites

116 of 116 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 117 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Hodnett ED Kaufmann K O’Brien-Pallas L Chipman M Watson-MacDonell J Hunsberger W A strategy to promote research-based nursing care: effects on childbirth outcomes Research in Nursing and Health 1996 19 13 20 8552798
  2. Nicolas F Raimondeau J Blanloeil Y Le CP Villers D Touze MD Cost analysis, consensus conference, medical audit Journal D’Economie Medicale 1996 14 3
  3. Doumit G Grimshaw J Graham I Smith A Wright F Opinion leaders - Effectiveness, Identification, Stability, Specificity, and Mechanism of Action Master Thesis 2006 University of Ottawa Ottawa, Canada
  4. Hiss RG MacDonald R David WR Identification of physician educational influentials in small community hospitals 283 8 Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference on Research in Medical Education Washington DC 1978
  5. Doumit G Gattellari M Grimshaw J O’Brien NMA Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and heath care outcomes Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007 1 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Flodgren, G., Parmelli, E., Doumit, G., Gattellari, M., O'Brien, M. A., Grimshaw, J., & Eccles, M. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (IT)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • McMaster University; School of Rehabilitation Science, Institute for Applied Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences; 1400 Main Street West Room 403 Hamilton Ontario Canada L8S 1C7
  • Ottawa Health Research Institute; Clinical Epidemiology Program; 1053 Carling Avenue Ottawa ON Canada K1Y 4E9
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-08-10
Volume
6
Issue
8
Pages
CD000125-CD000125
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1656816330
Cited by
1,070
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 69 · 2012: 55
FWCI
13.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (10/4001/03)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
opinion leaders, evidence-based practice, knowledge-practice gap, professional practice change, health care outcomes, clinical teaching, primary care, hospital care, patient outcomes, evidence dissemination, health professions education, patient safety, quality of care, health professional confidence
MeSH terms
Humans, Leadership, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Policy Making, Professional Practice, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Process Assessment, Health Care, Evidence-Based Medicine, Information Dissemination

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