Courriels Cochrane: a knowledge translation project

Oral
2010 Keystone
Granikov V1, Pluye P1, Grad R1, Theriault G2, Frémont P3, Burnard B4, Mercer J5, Marlow B6, Arroll B7, Luconi F8, Légaré F3, Labrecque M3, Ladouceur R9, Bouthillier F10
1Family Medicine, Information Technology Primary Care Research Group, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2CSSS de Gatineau, Gatineau, Quebec, Canada
3Family Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada
4Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
5Solutions Cliniques (Canadian Medical Association), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
6College of Family Physicians of Canada, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
7University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
8Faculty of Medicine, Continuing Medical Education, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
9Collège des médecins du Québec, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
10School of Information Studies, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Background:

Courriels Cochrane are French translations of P.E.A.R.L.S., excerpts taken from abstracts of Cochrane reviews disseminated by email to primary care physicians. We linked the Information Assessment Method (IAM) to Courriels Cochrane to stimulate physicians’ reflection and document ratings of relevance, cognitive impact, information use, and patient health benefits.

Objectives:

To disseminate IAM in French and to assess the impact of Courriels Cochrane on physicians.

Methods:

Out of 125 P.E.A.R.L.S., 40 were selected based on two criteria: relevance and newsworthiness to primary care, and translated into French. After an editorial process, which included contextualization, only 30 were retained. Participants were recruited among physicians who subscribe to cma.ca in French. By email, participants received one Courriel Cochrane per week. We assessed outcomes using IAM. For each completed questionnaire, physicians earned continuing medical education credit.

Results:

From October 2009 to January 2010, 14 Courriels Cochrane were emailed to 899 physicians. Of those, 98 physicians submitted 474 ratings. The most frequently reported items were: Cognitive Impact: ‘I learned something new’ N = 178 (38%) and ‘information confirmed I did (am doing) the right thing’ N = 169 (36%); Relevance for at least one patient N = 374 (79%), Application: ‘to justify or maintain patient management’ N = 181 (48%); Expected Health

Outcomes:

‘avoiding unnecessary or inappropriate interventions’ N = 118 (32%). Dissatisfaction was reported in 12 cases (3%), due to a problem with the information in 10 cases (2%).

Conclusions:

Courriels Cochrane can have a positive impact on practice. Further research could confirm this finding.