APRIL 30, 2005
VOLUME 2 NO. 8
 

"So what does your study mean to me?"

Imagine if you could just pick up the phone
and get the answer

Now you can, thanks to JAMA's innovative teleconference scheme
that puts the "Author in the Room"


For more than 99% of the million or so years that humanity has existed, our only method of sharing information was the spoken word. When Sumerian moneylenders invented written record-keeping about 5,000 years ago, they opened vast new possibilities for the dissemination of knowledge and humanity has never looked back.

Until now, that is. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), frustrated that their best research is being ignored in actual practice, has turned back to the oral tradition in an attempt to get doctors to pay attention. JAMA's new scheme, called "Author in the Room," invites published researchers to present their findings to actual practitioners in monthly conference calls.

The first phone-in took place on March 23 and presented findings from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), which suggested that hormone therapy, contrary to accepted wisdom, does not help alleviate urinary incontinence in postmenopausal women, and in fact makes it worse.

BREAKING BOUNDARIES
JAMA Editor-in-Chief Dr Catherine DeAngelis explained the rationale behind "Author in the Room" to the doctors who phoned in: "We see how often things published in our journal that make good sense, are well-documented, absolutely evidence-based medicine, and yet we get other papers that show it just doesn't seem to be penetrating. This seemed a superb way to study the problem and find out what is that gigantic barrier."

The initiative is a joint effort by JAMA and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). Dr Donald Berwick, IHI's director, also participated in the phone-in. He said: "Literally decades can pass between the publication of a paper and its implementation in practice. We have enormous respect for the problems that participants have in making changes to practice, and for the skepticism that they ought to have before they take action. Through this call hopefully we can make that bridge."

Their choice of paper for the first call-in session was intriguing. It was a bold choice, because it criticizes a standard treatment, and many callers were indeed quite skeptical about its findings. On the other hand, the WHI is hardly an ideal exemplar of a study that failed to influence clinical practice. It could be argued that no study in the history of medicine has had such a dramatic influence on practice as did WHI, which single-handedly knocked the bottom out of the hormone therapy market.

A QUESTION OF TIME
The call attracted 184 participants, and lasted one hour. The second half-hour was devoted to question-and-answer. That left time for 11 questions total. There's a problem here, which is that the more people participate, the less chance each has of posing a question. In fact, it's a bit like a TV gameshow. Once questions are opened, everyone must dive for buttons on their telephone keypad.

Dr Norman Barwin, an Ontario gynecologist who participated, didn't get to ask his question but praised the idea nonetheless. "It's nice to get that spontaneity, and a particular benefit is that you get to hear the concerns of other practitioners. I think the questions were just as interesting as the answers. It reminded me of a university lecture, but like a lecture, it's hit-or-miss whether you get to ask your own question at the end."

He thought "an excellent solution" would be a written, web-based, interactive question-and-answer session. "Then, everybody would get to ask their questions. And if you wanted to review the information, it would be easy to find." The written word remains a very good way of transmitting information.

Dr Margaret Winker, JAMA deputy editor, said such an idea might be tried in the future. In the meantime, transcripts could potentially save readers the trouble of trawling through the full one-hour audio file (available on IHI's website) to find the answer to a particular question. "But we're operating on a fixed grant, and transcripts cost money."

EXPERIMENTS EVOLVE
"We're open to any new methods," said Dr Winker. "This is essentially an experiment." And JAMA being the evidence-based journal that it is, they're naturally compiling data on the experiment. Participants had to complete a survey immediately after the conference call, and will answer followup questions in three months to see what impact, if any, the teleconference had on their clinical practice. "Unfortunately I can't reveal the survey results," said Dr Winker, "as we're planning to publish it."

Published JAMA articles, of course, are proprietary information and cost money to access. Which is an interesting point when one considers the problem of translating research into practice. Dr Barwin notes: "It would be essentially pointless to participate if you hadn't read the article and didn't have a copy in your lap." The phone-in is free for the first 200 participants. But if you want to read the article and don't already have access to JAMA, you'll have to pay $12US for 24-hour access.

Subscribing is not necessarily the answer, since there's no way to predict which journals will carry the articles you want over the coming year. Those who have free access to a whole range of journals tend to be specialists and academics — yet it's family doctors who are on the frontline when it comes to putting this kind of research into practice.

There's another problem that JAMA and the IHI might consider. One participant noted that doctors "don't like to make considerable changes in their practice based on one study. They like to wait for confirmation, more time going by, discussion with colleagues, before going ahead." Academic medicine is all about getting published, but there are more researchers than research topics. When researchers revisit a well-trodden research path, they need to show that they offer something different. Often this comes down to denigrating the methodology of previous research. It's no wonder that physicians tend to be skeptical.

The next "Author in the Room" session features JAMA's April 6 article "Outcomes in Hypertensive Black and Nonblack Patients Treated With Chlorthalidone, Amlodipine, and Lisinopril."

Register at http://www.ihi.org/IHI/Programs/ConferencesAndTraining/Author+in+the+Room.htm?TabId=10

 

 

 

back to top of page

 

 

 

 
 
© Parkhurst Publishing Privacy Statement
Legal Terms of Use
Site created by Spin Design T.