Multicomponent Internet continuing medical education to promote chlamydia screening
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
Authors
Allison, Jeroan J.Kiefe, Catarina I.
Wall, Terry
Casebeer, Linda
Ray, Midge N.
Spettell, Claire M.
Hook, Edward W.
Oh, M. Kim
Person, Sharina D.
Weissman, Norman W.
UMass Chan Affiliations
Department of Quantitative Health SciencesDocument Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2005-03-16Keywords
AdolescentAdult
Chlamydia Infections
Chlamydia trachomatis
Education, Medical, Continuing
Female
Health Promotion
Humans
*Internet
Medicine
Physician's Practice Patterns
Specialization
United States
Bioinformatics
Biostatistics
Epidemiology
Health Services Research
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
BACKGROUND: Low Chlamydia trachomatis screening rates create an opportunity to test innovative continuing medical education (CME) programs. Few studies of Internet-based physician learning have been evaluated with objective data on practice patterns. DESIGN: This randomized controlled trial tested a multicomponent Internet CME (mCME) intervention for increasing chlamydia screening of at-risk women aged 16 to 26 years. SETTING: Eligible physician offices had > or =20 patients at risk for chlamydia as defined by the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS), had at least one primary care physician (internal medicine, family medicine/general practice, pediatrics) with Internet access, and participated in the study managed care organization. The 191 randomized primary care offices represented 20 states. INTERVENTION: The intervention, available from February to December 2001, consisted of four case-based learning modules, was tailored in real time to each physician based on theory of behavior change, and included office-level feedback of chlamydia screening rates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: HEDIS chlamydia screening rates for the pre-intervention (2000) and post-intervention (2002) periods. RESULTS: Pre-intervention screening rates for the intervention and comparison offices were 18.9% and 16.2% (p =0.135). Post-intervention screening rates for the intervention and comparison offices were 15.5% and 12.4%, respectively (p =0.044, adjusting for baseline performance). CONCLUSIONS: The substantial decline in chlamydia screening rates observed in the comparison offices was significantly attenuated for the intervention offices. The mCME favorably influenced chlamydia screening by primary care physicians.Source
Am J Prev Med. 2005 Apr;28(3):285-90. Link to article on publisher's siteDOI
10.1016/j.amepre.2004.12.013Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/47419PubMed ID
15766617Related Resources
Link to Article in PubMedae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.amepre.2004.12.013