physicians' perceptions of consensus reports

Martha N. Hill, Carol S. Weisman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

In a pretest-posttest panel survey of 595 eligible Maryland physicians practicing family or general medicine, internal medicine, cardiology, or nephrology, perceptions of consensus reports designed to alter medical practice are examined. On a 7-point scale, physicians reported positive or neutral views of descriptors, most favorably rating credible (mean = 2.25) and reliable (mean = 2.41), and least favorably rating biased (mean = 3.79). In a regression analysis of factors influencing changes in practice behavior congruent with consensus recommendations before and 1 year after the release of a consensus report on hypertension (8), these perceptions were not significant determinants. The strongest predictor of congruent practice behavior a year after the report was published was congruent practice behavior just prior to the report's release, and the second strongest predictor was perceived influence of the report's sources/sponsors.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)30-41
Number of pages12
JournalInternational journal of technology assessment in health care
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1991

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'physicians' perceptions of consensus reports'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this