CMAJ - June 15, 1997 / Table 3: Canadian physicians' attitudes about and preferences regarding clinical practice guidelines

Canadian physicians' attitudes about and preferences regarding clinical practice guidelines

Table 3: Factors associated with respondents' use of information sources and level of impact of information sources, by source*

Source Factors† Parameter estimate (and % of variance)‡

Discussions with colleagues or consultants Academic affiliation 0.33  (4.0)

CD-ROM access 0.35  (1.0)

Review articles in journals French language 0.31  (2.0)

Access to computer database 0.68  (3.0)
0.30  (1.9)

Medical textbooks French language 0.31  (1.6)

> 20 h/wk in patient care 0.38  (1.1)

Pocket notes Primary care physician 0.60  (5.0)

Nonacademic affiliation 0.49  (3.0)

CPG changed practice in year before survey 0.52  (3.0)

Original research articles in journals Specialist 0.59  (9.0)
0.56  (3.0)

Academic affiliation 0.61  (7.0)

Institutional practice setting 0.31  (3.0)

Access to computer database 0.68  (5.0)
0.53  (2.0)

Brief updates Primary care physician 0.42  (4.5)
0.68  (8.0)

CPGs CPG changed practice in year before survey 0.54  (5.8)
0.75  (9.0)

CME courses Primary care physician 0.33  (3.0)

Computer-aided literature searches Academic affiliation 0.76  (7.0)
0.88  (7.0)

Access to computer database 1.40  (30.0)
1.56  (23.0)

CD-ROM access 1.23  (3.0)
1.29  (2.0)

Position papers by physician organizations CPG changed practice in year before survey 0.38  (3.8)
0.43  (3.0)

*Variables were all significant at p < 0.01 in the linear regression analysis and at p < 0.001 in the multivariate regression analysis, and they resulted in a shift of the mean rating score of at least 0.3 points on the 5point scale.
†The group listed rated the factor more useful than the group not listed (e.g., "academic affiliation" indicates that physicians with an academic affiliation rated the source of information more highly than those without an academic affiliation.
‡Parameter estimates are from univariate regression analysis; proportions of variance are from multivariate regression analysis. Values in plain type represent associations with frequency of use of information sources; those in bold type represent associations with self-reported impact of information.

[Return to text]

| CMAJ June 15, 1997 (vol 156, no 12) / JAMC le 15 juin 1997 (vol 156, no 12) |

CMA Webspinners / Les fileurs du Web de l'AMC

Table 3: Factors associated with respondents' use of information sources and level of impact of information sources, by source*
Source	Factors†	Parameter estimate (and % of variance)‡
Discussions with colleagues or consultants	Academic affiliation	0.33 (4.0)
Discussions with colleagues or consultants	CD-ROM access	0.35 (1.0)
Review articles in journals	French language	0.31 (2.0)
Review articles in journals	Access to computer database	0.68 (3.0) 0.30 (1.9)
Medical textbooks	French language	0.31 (1.6)
Medical textbooks	> 20 h/wk in patient care	0.38 (1.1)
Pocket notes	Primary care physician	0.60 (5.0)
	Nonacademic affiliation	0.49 (3.0)
	CPG changed practice in year before survey	0.52 (3.0)
Original research articles in journals	Specialist	0.59 (9.0) 0.56 (3.0)
	Academic affiliation	0.61 (7.0)
	Institutional practice setting	0.31 (3.0)
	Access to computer database	0.68 (5.0) 0.53 (2.0)
Brief updates	Primary care physician	0.42 (4.5) 0.68 (8.0)
CPGs	CPG changed practice in year before survey	0.54 (5.8) 0.75 (9.0)
CME courses	Primary care physician	0.33 (3.0)
Computer-aided literature searches	Academic affiliation	0.76 (7.0) 0.88 (7.0)
	Access to computer database	1.40 (30.0) 1.56 (23.0)
	CD-ROM access	1.23 (3.0) 1.29 (2.0)
Position papers by physician organizations	CPG changed practice in year before survey	0.38 (3.8) 0.43 (3.0)
*Variables were all significant at p < 0.01 in the linear regression analysis and at p < 0.001 in the multivariate regression analysis, and they resulted in a shift of the mean rating score of at least 0.3 points on the 5point scale. †The group listed rated the factor more useful than the group not listed (e.g., "academic affiliation" indicates that physicians with an academic affiliation rated the source of information more highly than those without an academic affiliation. ‡Parameter estimates are from univariate regression analysis; proportions of variance are from multivariate regression analysis. Values in plain type represent associations with frequency of use of information sources; those in bold type represent associations with self-reported impact of information.