Dataset Information

Caution required when relying on a colleague's advice; a comparison between professional advice and evidence from the literature.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Occupational Physicians rely especially on advice from colleagues when answering their information demands. On the other hand, Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) promotes the use of up-to-date research literature instead of experts. To find out if there was a difference between expert-based practice and EBM we compared professional advice on occupational health topics with best evidence from the literature. METHODS: We asked 14 occupational physicians to consult their usual information sources on 12 pre-conceived occupational health problems. The problems were presented in the form of case vignettes which contained sufficient clinical information to be used by the occupational physicians for the consultation of their experts. We had searched the literature for the best available evidence on the 12 problems, which made it possible to answer the clinical questions with a clear yes or no. RESULTS: The cases could be used by the occupational physicians as arising from their own practice. All together the occupational physicians consulted 75 different experts. Almost half of the consulted experts were near colleagues, 10% were industrial hygienists, 8% medical specialists and the rest had a varied background. Fifty three percent (95% confidence interval 42% to 65%) of all professional advice was not in line with the research literature. In 18 cases (24%) professional advice explicitly referred to up-to-date research literature as their used source. These cases were substantially less incorrect (17%) than advice that had not mentioned the literature as a source (65%) (difference 48%, 95% Confidence Interval from 27% to 69%). CONCLUSION: Advice that occupational physicians routinely get in their daily practice differs substantially from best evidence from the literature. Occupational physicians who ask professional advice should always ask about the evidence of this advice.

SUBMITTER: Schaafsma F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1208884 | biostudies-other | 2005

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Caution required when relying on a colleague's advice; a comparison between professional advice and evidence from the literature.

Schaafsma Frederieke F Verbeek Jos J Hulshof Carel C van Dijk Frank F

BMC health services research 20050831

<h4>Background</h4>Occupational Physicians rely especially on advice from colleagues when answering their information demands. On the other hand, Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) promotes the use of up-to-date research literature instead of experts. To find out if there was a difference between expert-based practice and EBM we compared professional advice on occupational health topics with best evidence from the literature.<h4>Methods</h4>We asked 14 occupational physicians to consult their usual i ...[more]

PMID: 16131405

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn an era of increasingly competitive funding, governments and donors will be looking for creative ways to extend and maximise resources. One such means can include building upon professional advice networks to more efficiently introduce, scale up, or change programmes and healthcare provider practices. This cross-sectional, mixed-methods, observational study compared professional advice networks of healthcare workers in eight primary healthcare units across four regions of Ethiopia. Primary healthcare units include a health centre and typically five satellite health posts.MethodsOne hundred sixty staff at eight primary healthcare units were interviewed using a structured tool. Quantitative data captured the frequency of healthcare worker advice seeking and giving on providing antenatal, childbirth, postnatal and newborn care. Network and actor-level metrics were calculated including density (ratio of ties between actors to all possible ties), centrality (number of ties incident to an actor), distance (average number of steps between actors) and size (number of actors within the network). Following quantitative network analyses, 20 qualitative interviews were conducted with network study participants from four primary healthcare units. Qualitative interviews aimed to interpret and explain network properties observed. Data were entered, analysed or visualised using Excel 6.0, UCINET 6.0, Netdraw, Adobe InDesign and MaxQDA10 software packages.ResultsThe following average network level metrics were observed: density .26 (SD.11), degree centrality .45 (SD.08), distance 1.94 (SD.26), number of ties 95.63 (SD 35.46), size of network 20.25 (SD 3.65). Advice networks for antenatal or maternity care were more utilised than advice networks for post-natal or newborn care. Advice networks were typically limited to primary healthcare unit staff, but not necessarily to supervisors. In seeking advice, a colleague's level of training and knowledge were valued over experience. Advice exchange primarily took place in person or over the phone rather than over email or online fora. There were few barriers to seeking advice.ConclusionInformal, inter-and intra-cadre advice networks existed. Fellow primary healthcare unit staff were preferred, particularly midwives, but networks were not limited to the primary healthcare unit. Additional research is needed to associate network properties with outcomes and pilot network interventions with central actors.

Dataset Information

Caution required when relying on a colleague's advice; a comparison between professional advice and evidence from the literature.

Publications

Caution required when relying on a colleague's advice; a comparison between professional advice and evidence from the literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets