2013 TMR PHYSICIAN SURVEY - The Value of Experience

Presented by:
www.TheMedicalRoundtable.com

Opinion & Empirical Evidence

The Medical Roundtable creates integrity for

expert opinion based upon empirical data.
TRUST
• publisher policies
• medical copyediting
• accuracy review
• referencing
• transparency

PEER REVIEW
• opinion based
• accuracy
• undue bias
• rooted in the evidence

CREATING
INTEGRITY
REPUTATION
• clinical expert speakers
• vetting experience
• balanced panels
• professionalism

DISCLOSURE
• faculty conflicts
• funding sources
• honoraria
• content control

Survey Design

TMR conducted an anonymous online survey:


Email invitation sent to 5,000 US physicians selected at random


17% open rate (903)



31% response rate (288) of openers



5% response rate of invited physicians



empirical data presented scrubbed of non-physician responses



iPad Mini sweepstakes offered



10 day response period




November 20 – 30, 2013

Free access to online roundtables including: The Role of Experience
in an Evidence-Based Practice

Who took the 2013 survey?

 88% Physicians (MD, DO)
 7% Scientists (PhD)*
 4% Physician Assistants (PA)*

Geographic Distribution
(optional response)

Age Distribution
(optional response)

*Empirical

data results presented scrubbed of non-physician responses.

Doctors Want Expert Interaction

UNSOLICITED FROM COMMUNITY CLINICIAN:
I really think The Medical Roundtable is a wonderful opportunity for
us, to get updated with the latest research, experts’ opinion and
interacting with the experts.
I am so glad that I am subscribed with this journal.

Sincerely,
Marina Behrad, MD |Community Health Network | Indianapolis, IN

Physicians Value Discussion Among Peers

 Physicians prefer* learning from reading journals first, then peer
discussion and CME meetings.
RANKINGS “mostly” & “sometimes”:
never (1)

sparingly (2)

sometimes (3)

mostly (4)

3.39 reading journals
3.26 peer discussion
3.25 live CME
2.79 online video
2.50 webinars
2.38 podcasts
% VALUE “mostly”:
49.1% reading journals
43.4% live CME
40.2% peer discussion
19.6% online video
13.2% webinars
10.7% podcasts

*Weighted

average scale ratings.

Some Readers Need Perspective*

Respondents expressed need for interpretation about the empirical evidence
combined with valuable perspective:
“I feel less able to critique a study‟s design and tend to rely on the experts for that”
“combines clinical trial info & expert interpretation/applications”
“offers expert point of view in addition”
“more than one opinion on the results is important”

“helps me see different sides”
“more input and interpretation”
“good to get various viewpoints”
“provides perspective of all three [original trial, review, expert opinion]”
“it gives a trusted perspective on the topic”
“like to hear/read expert interpretations and thoughts”

*In

response to question “Why do you prefer roundtable discussions over clinical trials and reviews?”

Physicians Prefer Expert Panel Discussions

Given the choice of only one:
 38% would choose Expert Panel Discussion

 31% would choose Original Trial Paper
 29% would choose Review Paper

Physicians are:
 7% more likely to read roundtable
than original trial
 9.4% more likely to read
roundtable than a review paper

Asked why? - Physicians:
 who preferred original and review
articles expressed desire to selfevaluate data
 who preferred roundtables
expressed value of combining
critical data and expert evaluation
to save time, seek experienced
guidance, and test their
knowledge
Respondents could choose only one answer and optionally provide a reason for their choice.

Respondents Test Themselves Against Experts*

Roundtables allow the reader to formulate and test their own practice
perspectives:
“a discussion with experts allows me to see independent opinions on that subject and
allow me to better formulate my own interpretations on the validity and accuracy of
the topic”
“it either bolsters my opinion or explains nuances which I might have missed”
“I like hearing other opinions which helps me to clarify my own opinion”
“Love the instantaneous response from other professionals to intermix with my own”

*In


Self-Evaluation of Trial Results*

Physicians expressed a desire to read original clinical trial and review
papers over roundtable discussions because:
“want to review methodology for myself”
“avoid „spin‟”
“I would like to see the methodology and results from the first PI group, in my
opinion, reviews and roundtables are readings that come after”
“original data available”
“review of short comings and strengths and practical aspects”
“I like to see the methods and analysis used”
“I would like to form my own opinion about the paper”
“I can make my own conclusions!”
*In

response to question “Why do you prefer clinical trials and reviews over roundtable discussions?”

Peer Discussion Influences Patient Treatment

 Peer Discussion ranked 4th most influential
 Sharp drop from 4th to remaining influencers

Δ=1.25

 CME meetings (3.66) and Peer
Discussion (3.95) hold equivalent
influence on patient treatment
decisions

Readers Perceive Value Beyond Data*

Readers seek “unpublished” information and consensus from
roundtables:
“expert discussions are probably most valuable in making a difference in patient
care and would be helpful to manage complex and uncommon conditions more
appropriately”
“I find roundtable discussions to contain very good information that may involve
non-FDA approved indications”
“they allow the sharing of information and data that may not get published but is
personal to those experts”
“roundtable expert discussions allow clinical experience and „wisdom‟ to shed
light on evidence-based practice, in much the same way that a master chef
would outperform a computer in the kitchen”
“the discussions support collaboration with experts and peers to bolster
consensus”
*In


“Experts” are Clinicians who Touch Patients

① Most valued criteria for an expert is Clinical Experience
② # of patients touched

③ # of journal articles / institutional affiliation

 TMR selects experts who meet
these criteria to engage
readers and build trust with our
audience

 While publishing papers and
authorship are valuable, hands
on clinical experience is pivotal
in determining value of the
expert discussion

Expert Discussions Provide Clinical Value

Physicians “strongly agree” or “agree” that:
Expert discussion provides….
- a valuable source of information (92%)
- confirmation of their own knowledge (83%)
- perspectives valuable to shape their own views (79%)
37% “disagreed” with with the statement:
Expert discussion provides nothing more than a
good review article.
Only 2% “strongly agreed” and 19% “agreed”

Respondents Consider Roundtables Easy*

Roundtables remove the hurdles to learning by being easy to read and
time-saving:
“well-discussed in this manner”
“cuts to the chase”
“the experts can distill the essence of the trial, saving me valuable time”
“easily digested”
“brief, time constraints”
“more concise”

“easier to read”

*In


Physicians attend CME, but want discussion

 91% would give their valuable time after a scientific conference
to listen to an impromptu expert panel discussion
 47% would remain for at least 30 minutes

 Holding a roundtable
discussion after the CME
event can educate the
audience with information they
seek

 A physician’s time is valuable –
but only 6% believe the core
CME presentation is sufficient
and almost all would stay for
the impromptu discussion

Physician Survey Summary

Survey Confirms:













Physicians consider peer discussion a preferred learning format.
More Physicians would choose to read a Roundtable Discussion over an Original Clinical Trial or a
Review Paper.
Physicians like to read roundtables to:
 test their knowledge
 assess opinions and perspectives of experts
 gain clarity and develop their own opinions
Among patient treatment influencers, peer discussion is equivalent to CME meetings.
Physicians seek consensus and “unpublished” information from roundtable discussions.
A physician is considered “expert” based primarily on his/her clinical experience and patient volume.
Physicians agree that expert discussion provides...
 “a valuable source of information”
 “confirmation of their own knowledge”
 “perspectives valuable to shape their own views”
Physicians disagree that expert discussion provides…
 “nothing more than a good review article”
Physicians would eagerly remain after a CME live event for a 30 minute impromptu expert panel
discussion
The Medical Roundtable is “easy to read” and a “time saver”
 removing hurdles to learning

Doctors Want Expert Interaction

Phone call from Seattle Physician Reader:
The Medical Roundtable is great because I get to see how what I
do in my daily practice stacks up against what the experts
recommend.

Reaction from NYU Physician Focus Interview:
I can see how [The Medical Roundtable] would help me stay in
touch with thought leadership on guidelines and clinical trials –
there’s too much to read and this is a great way for me to learn
something valuable during my lunch period.

Have a seat at our table.
T. Anthony Howell | Publisher
thowell@themedicalroundtable.com
203.253.5906

2013 TMR PHYSICIAN SURVEY - The Value of Experience

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Último

Último (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

2013 TMR PHYSICIAN SURVEY - The Value of Experience