Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26626547›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2015

What is the effectiveness of printed educational materials on primary care physician knowledge, behaviour, and patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

Agnes Grudniewicz, Ryan Kealy, Reitze N Rodseth, Jemila Hamid, David Rudoler, Sharon E Straus

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Atencion primaria · 2018
    Guideline
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Agnes GrudniewiczInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, Canada. a.grudniewicz@mail.utoronto.ca.
Ryan KealyInteractive Media Lab, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Bahen Centre for Information Technology, 40 St. George Street, Toronto, Canada. ryan.kealey@mail.utoronto.ca.
Reitze N RodsethPerioperative Research Group, Department of Anaesthetics, Grey's Hospital, Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Nata, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Reitze.Rodseth@kznhealth.gov.za.
Jemila HamidLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, 7th Floor, East Building, Toronto, Canada. jhamid@mcmaster.ca.
David RudolerInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, Canada. David.rudoler@utoronto.ca.
Sharon E StrausLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, 7th Floor, East Building, Toronto, Canada. sharon.straus@utoronto.ca.
University of Toronto · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CAGrey's Hospital · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrinted educational materials (PEMs) are commonly used simple interventions that can be used alone or with other interventions to disseminate clinical evidence. They have been shown to have a small effect on health professional behaviour. However, we do not know whether they are effective in primary care. We investigated whether PEMs improve primary care physician (PCP) knowledge, behaviour, and patient outcomes.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of PEMs developed for PCPs. Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, quasi randomized controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series. We combined studies using meta-analyses when possible. Statistical heterogeneity was examined, and meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model when significant statistical heterogeneity was present and a fixed effects model otherwise. The template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist was used to assess the quality of intervention description.

resultsOur search identified 12,439 studies and 40 studies met our inclusion criteria. We combined outcomes from 26 studies in eight meta-analyses. No significant effect was found on clinically important patient outcomes, physician behaviour, or physician cognition when PEMs were compared to usual care. In the 14 studies that could not be included in the meta-analyses, 14 of 71 outcomes were significantly improved following receipt of PEMs compared to usual care. Most studies lacked details needed to replicate the intervention.

conclusionsPEMs were not effective at improving patient outcomes, knowledge, or behaviour of PCPs. Further trials should explore ways to optimize the intervention and provide detailed information on the design of the materials. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42013004356.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInformation DisseminationPamphletsHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisPhysicians, Primary CarePractice Patterns, Physicians'

Identifiers

PMID26626547
PMCPMC4666153
OpenAlexW2187325735

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.