Search

Rationale: The shift toward virtual academic detailing (AD) was accelerated by the COVID‐19 pandemic. Aims and Objectives: We aimed to examine the role of external, contextual, and intrinsic programme‐specific factors in virtual engagement of healthcare providers (HCPs) and delivery of AD. Methods: AD groups throughout North America were contacted to participate in semistructured interviews. An interview guide was constructed by adapting the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). A point of emphasis included strategies AD groups employed for provider engagement while implementing virtual AD programmes. Independent coders conducted qualitative analysis using the framework method. Results: Fifteen AD groups from Canada (n = 3) and the United States (n = 12) participated. Technological issues and training detailers and HCPs were challenges during the transition to virtual AD visits. Restrictions on in‐person activities during the pandemic created difficulties engaging HCPs and fewer AD visits. Continuing education was one strategy to incentivize participation, but credits were often not claimed by HCPs. Groups with established networks and prior experience with virtual AD leveraged connections to mitigate disruptions and continue AD visits. Other facilitators included emphasizing contemporary topics, including opioid education beyond fundamental guidelines. Virtual AD had the additional benefit of expanding geographic reach and flexible scheduling with providers. Conclusions: AD groups across North America have shifted to virtual outreach and delivery strategies. This trend toward virtual AD may aid outreach to vulnerable rural communities, improving health equity. More research is needed on the effectiveness of virtual AD and its future implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Academic detailing (AD) is an effective, evidence-based education outreach method of promoting clinician behavior change. Detailer feedback is important for program evaluation but is rarely systematically collected. The study's objective was to develop a measure capturing the detailer's perception of the effectiveness of an AD program. Methods: A six-item measure with a five-level scale was initially developed from the literature review and expert panel consultation. Item constructs were usefulness, acceptability, feasibility, relevance, effectiveness of communication, and readiness to change. The measure was piloted, refined, and tested during an opioid-focused AD program that included two visits. The instrument structure was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis, measure reliability was assessed using item--item correlation (rho), corrected item--total correlation, Cronbach alpha (a), and item response theory. Results: The initial six-item instrument demonstrated unidimensionality. The Cronbach a for the measure was 0.74 (visit 1) and 0.79 (visit 2); one item (relevance) was redundant (α = 0.73 and 0.79 when deleted) and therefore dropped. Items related to usefulness, acceptability, and readiness to change displayed high item--item correlation (rho ≥ 0.50) and contributed the most information and seemed to operate as a single scale (ie, "likelihood to change") based on item response theory analysis. Items related to feasibility and communication were slightly different constructs and should be reported separately. Discussion: The five-item detailer assessment of visit effectiveness (the "DAVE") instrument provides a standardized approach to assess AD. Further study of its validity and broader use in other programs and educational outreach activities is encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The wording of the Hungarian EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems differ a great deal. This study aimed to (1) develop EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L value sets for Hungary from a common sample, and (2) compare how level wording affected valuations.Methods: In 2018 to 2019, 1000 respondents, representative of the Hungarian general population, completed composite time trade-off tasks. Pooled heteroscedastic Tobit models were used to estimate value sets. Value set characteristics, single-level transition utilities from adjacent corner health states, and mean transition utilities for all possible health states were compared between the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L.Results: Health utilities ranged from -0.865 to 1 for the EQ-5D-3L and -0.848 to 1 for the EQ-5D-5L. The relative importance of the 5 EQ-5D-5L dimensions was as follows: mobility, pain/discomfort, self-care, anxiety/depression, and usual activities. A similar preference ranking was observed for the EQ-5D-3L with self-care being more important than pain/discomfort. The EQ-5D-5L demonstrated lower ceiling effects (range of utilities for the mildest states: 0.900-0.958 [3L] vs 0.955-0.965 [5L]) and better consistency of mean transition utilities across the range of scale. Changing "confined to bed" (3L) to "unable to walk" (5L) had a large positive impact on utilities. Smaller changes with more negative wording in the other dimensions (eg, "very much anxious/feeling down a lot" [3L] vs "extremely anxious/depressed" [5L]) had a modest negative impact on utilities.Conclusion: This study developed value sets of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L for Hungary. Our findings contribute to the understanding of how the wording of descriptive systems affects the estimates of utilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare self-rated health among the United States general population in 2002 and 2017.Methods: Secondary data were analyzed from two EQ-5D valuation studies conducted in 2002 and 2017. Both studies included the EQ-5D-3L self-classifier and visual analog scale (VAS), where health is rated from 0 (worst imaginable health) to 100 (best imaginable health). VAS scores were compared between time points using regression models, adjusting for sociodemographic factors (Model 1), plus illness (Model 2), and health problems according to the EQ-5D classifier (Model 3).Results: Mean VAS scores in 2002 [84.4 (SD = 16.1)] were not different from 2017 [84.6 (SD = 14.5)] (p = 0.63), nor different after adjusting for demographics (Model 1) or illness (Model 2). However, 2017 VAS mean scores were significantly higher than 2002 [2.2 (95% CI 1.36-3.10)] upon adjusting for the presence of dimension-specific health problems.Conclusions: Self-rated health of the general US adult population in 2017 was similar to 2002, but after adjusting for health problems, scores were slightly higher in 2017. Sociodemographic shifts in age and education explain some of the differences in scores, and by removing health and sociodemographic factors, we found the VAS reveals self-rated health is slightly better in 2017 than 2002. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]