General practitioners’ assessment of interventions applied to optimize laboratory test utilization: a cross-sectional survey study

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of responders to the electronic survey vs. the group of GPs invited in the study.

		Responding GPs (n = 131)	Invited GPs (n = 638)	P-value
Gender				0.33
	Female	65 (50%)	346 (54%)
	Male	66 (50%)	292 (46%)
Age, years				0.72
	30-40	9 (7%)	62 (10%)
	41-50	55 (42%)	273 (43%)
	51-60	41 (31%)	190 (30%)
	>60	26 (20%)	113 (18%)
Type of practice				0.27
	Single-handed clinic	23 (18%)	88 (14%)
	Cooperation clinic	17 (13%)	114 (18%)
	Partnership clinic	90 (69%)	436 (68%)

Table 2. GP characteristics in the intervention groups. Absolute numbers and percentage of GPs answers.

	Guidelines N = 34	Non-interruptive alert N = 49	Interruptive alert N = 48	p-value	Number (total)	No feedback report N = 74	Feedback report N = 57	p-value
Gender
Female	20 (59%)	24 (49%)	21 (44%)	0.40	65	32 (43%)	33 (58%)	0.096
Male	14 (41%)	25 (51%)	27 (56%)		66	42 (57%)	24 (42%)
Age, years (N (%))
30–40	4 (12%)	3 (6%)	2 (4%)	0.54	9	5 (7%)	4 (7%)	0.98
41–50	16 (47%)	17 (35%)	22 (46%)		55	30 (41%)	25 (44%)
51–60	10 (29%)	18 (37%)	13 (27%)		41	24 (32%)	17 (30%)
>60	4 (12%)	11 (22%)	11 (23%)		26	15 (20%)	11 (19%)
Experience as a GP, years (N (%))
0–5	8 (24%)	6 (12%)	5 (10%)	0.29	19	11 (15%)	8 (14%)	0.85
6–10	7 (21%)	7 (14%)	14 (29%)		28	14 (19%)	14 (25%)
11–15	7 (21%)	15 (31%)	10 (21%)		32	18 (24%)	14 (25%)
16–20	5 (15%)	3 (6%)	5 (10%)		13	9 (12%)	4 (7%)
> 20	7 (21%)	18 (37%)	14 (29%)		39	22 (30%)	17 (30%)
Type of clinic
Single-handed clinic	6 (18%)	8 (16%)	9 (19%)	0.71	23	14 (19%)	9 (16%)	0.61
Cooperation clinic	5 (15%)	4 (8%)	8 (17%)		17	11 (15%)	6 (11%)
Partnership clinic	23 (68%)	37 (76%)	30 (64%)		90	48 (66%)	42 (74%)
Number of GPs in the clinic (mean (SD))
	3.5 (1.9)	2.9 (1.5)	3.2 (1.6)	0.37		3.1 (1.6)	3.3 (1.7)	0.55

Table 3. Survey questions regarding clinic working routines. Absolute numbers and percentage of GPs answers.

	Guidelines N = 34	Non-interruptive alert N = 49	Interruptive alert N = 48	p-value	Number (total)	No feedback report N = 74	Feedback report N = 57	p-value
Who of your employees request tests in the electronic requesting system? (select more than one option if relevant)
Doctor	34 (100%)	48 (98%)	48 (100%)	1.00	130	73 (99%)	57 (100%)	1.00
Nurse	28 (82%)	39 (80%)	39 (81%)	1.00	106	63 (85%)	43 (75%)	0.18
Other	26 (76%)	36 (73%)	25 (52%)	0.031	87	49 (66%)	38 (67%)	1.00
Who amongst your employees most OFTEN requests tests in the electronic requesting system?
Doctor	22 (65%)	34 (69%)	35 (73%)	0.81	91	52 (70%)	39 (68%)	0.75
Nurse	7 (21%)	10 (20%)	10 (21%)		27	16 (22%)	11 (19%)
Other	5 (15%)	5 (10%)	3 (6%)		13	6 (8%)	7 (12%)
Is Vitamin D requested as part of a profile?
Always	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0.18	0	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0.51
Often	8 (24%)	6 (12%)	9 (19%)		23	13 (18%)	10 (18%)
Sometimes	13 (38%)	26 (53%)	17 (35%)		56	35 (47%)	21 (37%)
Rarely	9 (26%)	6 (12%)	15 (31%)		30	14 (19%)	16 (28%)
Never	4 (12%)	11 (22%)	6 (13%)		21	12 (16%)	9 (16%)
Do not know	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (2%)		1	0 (0%)	1 (2%)

Figure 1. a) the percentage of GPs who found the guidelines helpful to ‘high’ or ‘somé degree; b) the percentage of GPs who read the feedback reports ‘always’ or ‘often’; c) the percentage of GPs who found it problematic that the pop-up alert was displayed every time a test of Vitamin D was requested.

Table 4. Overview question. The rating of the interventions reported by each group of GPs.

Of the interventions applied, which do you think work best?	Guidelines + feedback reports (group 3) N = 11	Non-interruptive alert (group 4) N = 23	Non-interruptive alert + feedback reports (group 5) N = 26	Interruptive alert (group 6) N = 27	Interruptive alert + feedback reports (group 7) N = 20
Guidelines	2 (18%)	8 (35%)	2 (8%)	9 (32%)	4 (20%)
Feedback reports	7 (64%)		2 (8%)		1 (5%)
Non-interruptive alert		14 (61%)	20 (77%)	15 (54%)	11 (55%)
Interruptive alert				2 (7%)	2 (10%)
None of them	2 (18%)	1 (4%)	2 (8%)	2 (7%)	2 (10%)

The question was asked only to the groups that received multiple interventions, and not to the members of group 2, which received only one intervention and thus were not able to provide meaningful comparisons.