Use and perceptions of clinical practice guidelines by internal medicine physicians.
ABSTRACT The authors sought to explore the use and perceptions of clinical practice guidelines among internal medicine physicians. Through a Web-based survey, 201 board-certified internal medicine physicians rated their opinions on several statements using 7-point Likert scales. Most respondents (74.7%) felt that guidelines were suitable for at least half of their patients, although a failure to take comorbid conditions into account was a frequently cited barrier. For patients with cardiovascular disease, there was no difference between individual internists' perceptions of their own compliance with guidelines and their estimates of cardiologists' compliance (P = .14). A large majority of respondents (70.7%) believed that guideline committee member participation in industry-funded research introduces bias into guideline content (median [interquartile range], 5 [4-6]). Although most respondents felt that measuring physicians against guideline-based performance measures encourages evidence-based medicine (76.5%), opinions were split as to whether this practice distracts from patient care or compromises physician autonomy.
- SourceAvailable from: Zhanjun Wu[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In the present work, isothermal oxidation of a ZrB2–(20 vol.%) SiC–(6 vol.%) ZrC (ZrB2–SiC–ZrC) ceramic was carried out at a constant temperature of 1600±15°C in static air, and the microstructures of the surface and fractured surface of the oxidised specimen were observed using SEM. The change curve of weight change/unit area with increasing oxidation time was composed of four stages according to the increase in the oxidation time: initial, middle, middle-late and late. In the different stages, a mathematical model was formulated to interpret the oxidation behaviour of the ZrB2–SiC–ZrC ceramic at high temperature.Corrosion Science 06/2011; 53(6):2344-2349. · 3.69 Impact Factor
- Psychological Science in the Public Interest 11/2008;
- Revista Clínica Española 03/2009; 209(3):107-109. · 1.31 Impact Factor