Physician assessments of the value of therapeutic information delivered via e-mail

• Published in: Canadian family physician Vol. 60; no. 5; pp. e258 - e262
• Main Authors: Grad, Roland, Pluye, Pierre, Repchinsky, Carol, Jovaisas, Barbara, Marlow, Bernard, Marques Ricarte, Ivan L, Galvão, Maria Cristiane Barbosa, Shulha, Michael, de Gaspé Bonar, James, Moscovici, Jonathan L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Canada College of Family Physicians of Canada 01.05.2014
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Attitude of Health Personnel; Canada; Education, Medical, Continuing - methods; Electronic Mail; Electronic mail systems; Family Practice - education; Family Practice - methods; Female; Humans; Internet; Male; Middle Aged; Physicians; Practice Patterns, Physicians; Prescriptions; Program Description; Self Report; Canada
• ISSN: 0008-350X; 1715-5258

Although e-learning programs are popular and access to electronic knowledge resources has improved, raising awareness about updated therapeutic recommendations in practice continues to be a challenge. To raise awareness about and document the use of therapeutic recommendations. In 2010, family physicians evaluated e-Therapeutics (e-T) Highlights with a Web-based tool called the Information Assessment Method (IAM). The e-T Highlights consisted of information found in the primary care reference e-Therapeutics+. Each week, family physicians received an e-mail containing a link to 1 Highlight from a different chapter of e-Therapeutics+. Family physicians received continuing medical education credits for each Highlight they rated with the IAM. Of the 5346 participants, 85% of them were full-time or part-time practitioners. A total of 31 429 Highlights ratings were received in 2010 (median of 2 ratings per participant, range 1 to 49). Among participants who rated more than 2 Highlights, the median number of ratings was 7 (mean 11.9). The relevance of the information from individual Highlights varied widely; however, for 90% of the rated Highlights participants indicated total or partial relevance of the information for at least 1 patient. For 41% of rated Highlights, participants expected patient health benefits to result from implementing the recommendation, such as avoiding an unnecessary or inappropriate treatment, or a preventive intervention. This continuing medical education program stimulated family physicians to rate therapeutic recommendations that were delivered weekly via e-mail. The process of rating e-T Highlights with the IAM raised awareness about treatment recommendations and documented self-reported use of this information in practice.