Table 3 Ratings on questionnaire to factors that encourage and discourage family physicians' use of academic detailing (using a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly discourage and 5 = strongly encourage)
From: Family physicians' perceptions of academic detailing: a quantitative and qualitative study
| Â | Non-users | Users |
|---|---|---|
Encouraging/Discouraging Factor | Mean Rating (SD) | Mean Rating (SD) |
Relevance to practice of topic being presented | 3.63 (1.1) | 4.45 (0.6)* |
Evidence-based approach | 4.00 (1.1) | 4.38 (0.8) |
Usefulness of handout | 3.27 (1.3) | 4.30 (0.8)* |
Effectiveness of academic detailing as a way of learning | 3.21 (1.4) | 4.18 (0.9)* |
Awareness that topic was being presented | 3.19 (1.0) | 4.11 (0.8)* |
Follow up by finding answers to questions | 3.86 (1.0) | 4.02 (0.9) |
Clinical knowledge of topic being presented | 3.40 (1.0) | 3.84 (0.8)* |
Obtaining CME credits | 3.89 (0.9) | 3.67 (1.0) |
Scheduling time to see the academic detailer | 2.52 (1.3) | 3.45 (1.0)* |
Having access to CME in other ways | 3.02 (1.2) | 3.36 (0.9)* |
Spending office time doing CME | 2.11 (1.1) | 3.33 (1.0)* |
Having CME provided by a non-physician | 2.55 (1.0) | 3.21 (0.8)* |