Gaby Doumit

The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Are you Gaby Doumit?

Claim your profile

Publications (4)13.78 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical practice is not always evidence-based and, therefore, may not optimise patient outcomes. Opinion leaders disseminating and implementing 'best evidence' is one method that holds promise as a strategy to bridge evidence-practice gaps. To assess the effectiveness of the use of local opinion leaders in improving professional practice and patient outcomes. We searched Cochrane EPOC Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, ISI Conference Proceedings and World Cat Dissertations up to 5 May 2009. In addition, we searched reference lists of included articles. Studies eligible for inclusion were randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of using opinion leaders to disseminate evidence-based practice and reporting objective measures of professional performance and/or health outcomes. Two review authors independently extracted data from each study and assessed its risk of bias. For each trial, we calculated the median risk difference (RD) for compliance with desired practice, adjusting for baseline where data were available. We reported the median adjusted RD for each of the main comparisons. We included 18 studies involving more than 296 hospitals and 318 PCPs. Fifteen studies (18 comparisons) contributed to the calculations of the median adjusted RD for the main comparisons. The effects of interventions varied across the 63 outcomes from 15% decrease in compliance to 72% increase in compliance with desired practice. The median adjusted RD for the main comparisons were: i) Opinion leaders compared to no intervention, +0.09; ii) Opinion leaders alone compared to a single intervention, +0.14; iii) Opinion leaders with one or more additional intervention(s) compared to the one or more additional intervention(s), +0.10; iv) Opinion leaders as part of multiple interventions compared to no intervention, +0.10. Overall, across all 18 studies the median adjusted RD was +0.12 representing a 12% absolute increase in compliance in the intervention group. Opinion leaders alone or in combination with other interventions may successfully promote evidence-based practice, but effectiveness varies both within and between studies. These results are based on heterogeneous studies differing in terms of type of intervention, setting, and outcomes measured. In most of the studies the role of the opinion leader was not clearly described, and it is therefore not possible to say what the best way is to optimise the effectiveness of opinion leaders.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2011; · 5.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT: Opinion leaders represent one way to disseminate new knowledge and influence the practice behaviors of physicians. This study explored the stability of opinion leaders over time, whether opinion leaders were polymorphic (i.e., influencing multiple practice areas) or monomorphic (i.e., influencing one practice area), and reach of opinion leaders in their local network. We surveyed surgeons and pathologists in Ontario to identify opinion leaders for colorectal cancer in 2003 and 2005 and to identify opinion leaders for breast cancer in 2005. We explored whether opinion leaders for colorectal cancer identified in 2003 were re-identified in 2005. We examined whether opinion leaders were considered polymorphic (nominated in 2005 as opinion leaders for both colorectal and breast cancer) or monomorphic (nominated in 2005 for only one condition). Social-network mapping was used to identify the number of local colleagues identifying opinion leaders. Response rates for surgeons were 41% (2003) and 40% (2005); response rates for pathologists were 42% (2003) and 37% (2005). Four (25%) of the surgical opinion leaders identified in 2003 for colorectal cancer were re-identified in 2005. No pathology opinion leaders for colorectal cancer were identified in both 2003 and 2005. Only 29% of surgical opinion leaders and 17% of pathology opinion leaders identified in the 2005 survey were considered influential for both colorectal cancer and breast cancer. Social-network mapping revealed that only a limited number of general surgeons (12%) or pathologists (7%) were connected to the social networks of identified opinion leaders. Opinion leaders identified in this study were not stable over a two-year time period and generally appear to be monomorphic, with clearly demarcated areas of expertise and limited spheres of influence. These findings may limit the practicability of routinely using opinion leaders to influence practice.
    Implementation Science 01/2011; 6:117. · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical practice is not always evidence-based and, therefore, may not optimise patient outcomes. Opinion leaders disseminating and implementing 'best evidence' is one innovative method that holds promise as a strategy to bridge evidence-practice gaps. To assess the effectiveness of the use of local opinion leaders in improving the behaviour of health care professionals and patient outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Health Star, SIGLE and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Trials Register. We did not apply date restrictions to our search strategy. Searches were last updated in February 2005. In addition, we searched reference lists of all potential studies that were identified. Studies eligible for inclusion were randomized controlled trials that used objective measures of performance/provider behaviour and/or patient health outcomes. Two reviewers extracted data from each study and assessed its methodological quality. We calculated the absolute difference in the risk of 'non-compliance' with desired practice, adjusting for baseline levels of non-compliance where these data were available. Twelve studies met our eligibility criteria. The adjusted absolute risk difference of non-compliance with desired practice varied from -6% (favouring control) to +25% (favouring opinion leader intervention). Overall, the median adjusted risk difference (ARD) was 0.10 representing a 10% absolute decrease in non-compliance in the intervention group. The use of local opinion leaders can successfully promote evidence-based practice. However the feasibility of its widespread use remains uncertain.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2007; · 5.70 Impact Factor