Implementing evidence-based practice: evaluation of an opinion leader strategy to improve breast-feeding rates. Improving discussion of surgical treatment options for patients with breast cancer: local medical opinion leaders versus audit and performance feedback. Randomised controlled trial of a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice [ISRCTN23257060]. Do local opinion leaders augment hospital quality improvement efforts? A randomized trial to promote adherence to unstable angina guidelines. Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. Effect of local medical opinion leaders on quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial. Promoting patient participation in consultations: a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of three patient-focused interventions. Adoption, reach and effectiveness of computer-based, practitioner delivered and combined smoking interventions in general medical practices: a three-arm cluster randomized trial. A randomized trial of opinion leader endorsement in a survey of orthopaedic surgeons: effect on primary response rates.
The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of opinion leaders in raising breast-feeding rates.
                A randomized controlled trial of an opinion leader strategy in 18 hospitals in Central New York State compared mothers' intention to breast-feed during baseline and study years. Multivariate logistic regression with a mixed model analyzed the effects on breast-feeding exclusively and on breast- and formula-feeding combined.
                Obstetric clinicians had a high degree of knowledge about breast-feeding benefits and of perceived responsibility to recommend breast-feeding. Obstetricians, family practitioners, and midwives agreed on the person identified as the opinion leader, in each case an obstetrician who was chief of obstetrics or obstetrics-gynecology. Breast-feeding rates in hospitals with the opinion leader intervention did not differ significantly from those in control-group hospitals during the study year.
                The opinion leader strategy in this case did not improve breast-feeding rates during the study year. Opinion leader strategies may make assumptions about clinician control that are not justified in situations such as breast-feeding. We studied whether a hospital intervention utilizing medical opinion leaders and performance feedback reduced the proportion of women who reported that surgeons did not discuss options prior to surgery for early stage breast cancer. Opinion leaders provided clinical education to their peers using a variety of strategies and were selected for their ability to influence their peers. Performance feedback involved distributing performance reports that contained data on the outcomes of interest as well as on other treatment patterns. Twenty-eight hospitals in Minnesota were randomized to the intervention or to a control group that received performance feedback only. The proportion of patients at intervention hospitals who said that their surgeon did not discuss options decreased significantly (p < 0.001) from 33% to 17%, but a similar decrease was observed among control hospitals. Using medical opinion leaders to intervene in hospitals appeared as effective as performance feedback. Previous studies have shown that Norwegian public health physicians do not systematically and explicitly use scientific evidence in their practice. They work in an environment that does not encourage the integration of this information in decision-making. In this study we investigate whether a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice increases the physicians' use of research information.
                148 self-selected public health physicians were randomised to an intervention group (n = 73) and a control group (n = 75). The intervention group received a multifaceted intervention while the control group received a letter declaring that they had access to library services. Baseline assessments before the intervention and post-testing immediately at the end of a 1.5-year intervention period were conducted. The intervention was theoretically based and consisted of a workshop in evidence-based public health, a newsletter, access to a specially designed information service, to relevant databases, and to an electronic discussion list. The main outcome measure was behaviour as measured by the use of research in different documents.
                The intervention did not demonstrate any evidence of effects on the objective behaviour outcomes. We found, however, a statistical significant difference between the two groups for both knowledge scores: Mean difference of 0.4 (95% CI: 0.2-0.6) in the score for knowledge about EBM-resources and mean difference of 0.2 (95% CI: 0.0-0.3) in the score for conceptual knowledge of importance for critical appraisal. There were no statistical significant differences in attitude-, self-efficacy-, decision-to-adopt- or job-satisfaction scales. There were no significant differences in Cochrane library searching after controlling for baseline values and characteristics.
                Though demonstrating effect on knowledge the study failed to provide support for the hypothesis that a theory-based multifaceted intervention targeted at identified barriers will change professional behaviour. The influence of an opinion leader intervention on adherence to Unstable Angina (UA) guidelines compared with a traditional quality improvement model was investigated.
                A group-randomized controlled trial with 2210 patients from 21 hospitals was designed. There were three intervention arms: (1) no intervention (NI); (2) a traditional Health Care Quality Improvement Program (HCQIP); and (3) a physician opinion leader in addition to the HCQIP model (OL). Quality indicators included: electrocardiogram within 20 minutes, antiplatelet therapy within 24 hours and at discharge, and heparin and beta-blockers during hospitalization. Hospitals could determine the specific indicators they wished to target. Potential cases of UA were identified from Medicare claims data. UA confirmation was determined by a clinical algorithm based on data abstracted from medical records. Data analyses included both hospital level analysis (analysis of variance) and patient level analysis (generalized linear models).
                The only statistically significant postintervention difference in percentage compliant was greater improvement for the OL group in the use of antiplatelet therapy at 24 hours in both hospital level (P = 0.01) and patient level analyses (P <0.05) compared with the HCQIP and NI groups. When analyses were confined to hospitals that targeted specific indicators, compared with the HCQIP hospitals, the OL hospitals showed significantly greater change in percentage compliant postintervention in both antiplatelet therapy during the first 24 hours (20.2% vs. -3.9%, P = 0.02) and heparin (31.0% vs.9.1%, P = 0.05).
                The influence of physician opinion leaders was unequivocally positive for only one of five quality indicators. To maximize adherence to best practices through physician opinion leaders, more research on how these physicians influence health care delivery in their organizations will be required. A randomized controlled trial with 76 physicians in 16 community hospitals evaluated audit and feedback and local opinion leader education as methods of encouraging compliance with a guideline for the management of women with a previous cesarean section. The guideline recommended clinical actions to increase trial of labor and vaginal birth rates. Charts for all 3552 cases in the study groups were audited. After 24 months the trial of labor and vaginal birth rates in the audit and feedback group were no different from those in the control group, but rates were 46% and 85% higher, respectively, among physicians educated by an opinion leader. Duration of hospital stay was lower in the opinion leader education group than in the other two groups. The overall cesarean section rate was reduced only in the opinion leader education group. There were no adverse clinical outcomes attributable to the interventions. The use of opinion leaders improved the quality of care. The effectiveness of recruiting local medical opinion leaders to improve quality of care is poorly understood.
                To evaluate a guideline-implementation intervention of clinician education by local opinion leaders and performance feedback to (1) increase use of lifesaving drugs (aspirin and thrombolytics in eligible elderly patients, beta-blockers in all eligible patients) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and (2) decrease use of a potentially harmful therapy (prophylactic lidocaine).
                Randomized controlled trial with hospital as the unit of randomization, intervention, and analysis.
                Thirty-seven community hospitals in Minnesota.
                All patients with AMI admitted to study hospitals over 10 months before (1992-1993, N=2409) or after (1995-1996, N=2938) the intervention.
                Using a validated survey, we identified opinion leaders at 20 experimental hospitals who influenced peers through small and large group discussions, informal consultations, and revisions of protocols and clinical pathways. They focused on (1) evidence (drug efficacy), (2) comparative performance, and (3) barriers to change. Control hospitals received mailed performance feedback.
                Hospital-specific changes before and after the intervention in the proportion of eligible patients receiving each study drug.
                Among experimental hospitals, the median change in the proportion of eligible elderly patients receiving aspirin was +0.13 (17% increase from 0.77 at baseline), compared with a change of -0.03 at control hospitals (P=.04). For beta-blockers, the respective changes were +0.31 (63% increase from 0.49 at baseline) vs +0.18 (30% increase from baseline) for controls (P=.02). Lidocaine use declined by about 50% in both groups. The intervention did not increase thrombolysis in the elderly (from 0.73 at baseline), but nearly two thirds of eligible nonrecipients were older than 85 years, had severe comorbidities, or presented after at least 6 hours.
                Working with opinion leaders and providing performance feedback can accelerate adoption of some beneficial AMI therapies (eg, aspirin, beta-blockers). Secular changes in knowledge and hospital protocols may extinguish outdated practices (eg, prophylactic lidocaine). However, it is more difficult to increase use of effective but riskier treatments (eg, thrombolysis) for frail elderly patients. The aim of this experimental study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three patient-focused interventions designed to increase patient question asking in clinical consultations. Patients were randomly allocated to one of five conditions to receive either one of three interventions or to serve as an attention control group or a control group. The primary outcome measure was question asking by the patient of their physician. Participants in the intervention groups did not ask more questions than participants in the control groups. Immediately after the consultation participants in the intervention groups had higher levels of self-efficacy in asking questions. Three months after the index visit patients in the intervention groups were significantly more likely to be satisfied to some degree than patients in the control group. There was no difference in diabetic control. These results suggest that simple brief patient-focused interventions do not change patient behaviour in medical outpatient consultations. Brief advice for smoking patients has not been sufficiently integrated in routine care. Computer-based interventions emerged as a time saving option that might help to exhaust the potential population impact of the general practice setting.
                151 practices were randomly assigned to one of three intervention programs consisting in the delivery of: (1) brief advice by the practitioner; (2) individually tailored computer-generated letters; or (3) a combination of both interventions. We assessed three dimensions of population impact: (1) adoption, i.e., the rate of practices participating in the program; (2) reach, measured as the number of interventions provided within 7 months; (3) effectiveness, measured as smoking abstinence at 12-months follow-up.
                Among the practices, 70% adopted the program with no significant differences across study groups. Treatment was provided to 3086 adult smokers. Negative binomial regression analysis revealed that the number of interventions provided was higher in practices allocated to the tailored letter and combination intervention groups by 215% (p<.01) and 127% (p=.02), respectively, compared to the brief advice intervention group. Among the patients who received the combination of both intervention, the odds of point abstinence from smoking was increased by 65% (p=.02) and 32% (p=.01) compared to the brief advice and tailored letters intervention respectively. Comparing the number of abstinent patients at follow-up revealed that the tailored letter and combination interventions were superior to the brief advice intervention.
                Computer-based interventions alone or in addition to conventional practitioner-delivered advice can foster the participation of general medical practices in tobacco control.
                Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Opinion leaders have been shown to have significant influence on the practice of health professionals and patient outcomes.
                Using focus groups, key informants, and sampling to redundancy techniques, we developed a questionnaire of surgeons' preferences in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures. Twenty-two well-respected and widely known orthopaedic traumatologists endorsed the questionnaire. We randomized 395 surgeon members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association to receive either a questionnaire that included a letter informing them of the opinion leaders' endorsement, or a questionnaire without the endorsement.
                Surgeons who received the letter of endorsement had a significantly lower response rate at 2, 4, and 8 weeks. The absolute difference in response rates was 7.8% (4.6% versus 12.4%, P < 0.05) at 2 weeks, 13.1% at 4 weeks (28.6% versus 41.7% P < 0.02), and 12.3% at 8 weeks (47.5% versus 59.8% P = 0.02).
                The addition of a letter listing expert surgeons who endorse the survey lead to significantly lower primary response rates. Those interested in influencing physician responses cannot always assume a positive effect from endorsement by opinion leaders
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.