A randomized controlled trial comparing two ways of providing evidence-based drug information to GPs

Abstract

Objective. To investigate whether tailored evidence-based drug information (EBDI) to general practitioners (GPs) can change the proportion of ACE inhibitor prescriptions more effectively than EBDI provided as usual three and six months after the intervention. Design. Randomized controlled trial. Setting. GPs in southern Sweden working at primary health care centres (PHCCs) in seven drug and therapeutic committee areas. Intervention. EBDI tailored to motivational interviewing (MI) technique and focused on the benefit aspect was compared with EBDI provided as usual. Subjects. There were 408 GPs in the intervention group and 583 GPs in the control group. Main outcome measures. Change in proportion of ACE inhibitor prescriptions relative to the sum of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, three and six months after the intervention. Results. The GPs’ average proportions of prescribed ACE inhibitors increased in both groups. No statistically significant differences in the change of proportions were found between intervention and control groups. Information was provided to 29% of GPs in both groups. Conclusion. This study could not prove that specially tailored EBDI using MI implements guidelines more effectively than EBDI provided as usual.

Key Words::

• Benefit aspects
• drug information services
• drug prescriptions
• evidence-based medicine
• general practice
• general practitioner
• motivational interviewing
• primary health care
• Sweden

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all study participants, the Research and Development Council Southern Älvsborg County, and Christopher Pickering for valuable comments.

Source of funding

Financial support; the Research and Development Unit in Primary Health Care and Dental Care, and the Research and Development Council, Southern Älvsborg County, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.

Ethical approval

The study was carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Gothenburg (Dnr: 129-04/17 May 2004). Written information was sent to the heads of approving PHCCs.

Declaration of interest

Ingmarie Skoglund was chairwoman of the DTC in Södra Älvsborg (1999–2008). This particular DTC did not take part in the study. The authors report no other conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.