Cited by 87Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesClinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Policy Implementation Science

Group versus individual academic detailing to improve the use of antihypertensive medications in primary care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Open access
Simon, Steven R., Majumdar, Sumit R., Prosser, Lisa A., Salem-Schatz, Susanne, Warner, Cheryl, Kleinman, Ken, Miroshnik, Irina, Soumerai, Stephen B.·2005·The American Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Purpose To compare group versus individual academic detailing to increase diuretic or beta-blocker use in hypertension.Methods We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial in a large health maintenance organization. Subjects (N=9820) were patients with newly treated hypertension in the year preceding the intervention (N=3692), the 9 months following the intervention (N=3556), and the second year following intervention (N=2572). We randomly allocated 3 practice sites to group detailing (N=227 prescribers), 3 to individual detailing (N=235 prescribers), and 3 to usual care (N=319 prescribers). Individual detailing entailed a physician-educator meeting individually with clinicians to address barriers to prescribing guideline-recommended medications. The group detailing intervention incorporated the same social marketing principles in small groups of clinicians.Results In the first year following the intervention, the rates of diuretic or beta-blocker use increased by 13.2% in the group detailing practices, 12.5% in the individual detailing practices, and 6.2% in the usual care practices. As compared with usual care practices, diuretic or beta-blocker use was more likely in group detailing practices (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11 - 1.76) and individual detailing practices (adjusted OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.95 - 1.79). Neither intervention affected blood pressure control. Two years following this single-visit intervention, there was still a trend suggesting a persistent effect of individual (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.92 - 1.62), but not group, detailing (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.80 - 1.39), as compared with usual care.Conclusion Both group and individual academic detailing improved antihypertensive prescribing over and above usual care but may require reinforcement to sustain improvements.

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 · 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.12.023

Cites

35 of 35 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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [20]20. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health outcomes (Cochrane review). Oxford: Update Software, 1999.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Simon, S. R., Majumdar, S. R., Prosser, L. A., Salem-Schatz, S., Warner, C., Kleinman, K., Miroshnik, I., & Soumerai, S. B.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates (US)
Corresponding author
Simon, Steven R.
Venue
The American Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-05
Volume
118
Issue
5
Pages
521-528
ISSN
0002-9343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2090487756
Cited by
87
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The American Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) (submittedVersion)
  • Scholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (U18 HS010391, U18 HS 12019)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
academic detailing, antihypertensive prescribing, hypertension, diuretics, beta-blockers, guideline adherence, social marketing, primary care, blood pressure control, health maintenance organizations
MeSH terms
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists, Adult, Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diuretics, Drug Utilization, Education, Medical, Continuing, Female, Health Maintenance Organizations, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, New England, Primary Health Care, Logistic Models, Drug Costs, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence, Social Marketing

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