Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 227–231 | Cite as

Pre-randomization decisions and group stratification in a randomized controlled trial to improve prescribing

  • Martine E.C. van EijkEmail author
  • Arsenio H.P. Paes
  • Arijan Porsius
  • Jerry Avorn
  • Anthonius de Boer


Method: Structured telephone interviews and pre- and post-intervention prescription data.

Setting: Additional study in an RCT to rationalize prescribing in primary care, addressing groups of pharmacists and doctors. Representatives of 61 primary care practice groups in the Netherlands.

Main outcome measures: Identification and evaluation of primary care practice group characteristics related to changes in prescribing. These characteristics were evaluated by estimation of incidence rate ratios (Poisson regression).

Results: Of practice groups 40 representatives (66%) participated in our study. Three characteristics were found to be most relevant for stratification: the purpose of the practice groups (whether they participated in information exchange (n=14) or binding consensus on pharmacotherapy (n=26)), the use of a formulary (22 practice groups did and 18 groups did not) and the use of feedback data (22 groups did and 18 groups did not). These characteristics strongly modified the effect of the program on prescribing behaviour. While the overall effect of the program was to significantly reduce the prescribing of the targeted drugs, this change was not consistent in all strata.

Conclusion: Assessment of the characteristics of practice groups made it possible to define factors to be used for a stratified randomization of practice groups which in retrospect indeed modified the effect of an educational intervention directed to change prescribing. Such pre-randomization assessments can be a useful tool in interventions designed to improve practice patterns in groups of physicians.

Continuing medical education Continuing professional development Practice groups Randomization Rational drug use Stratification The Netherlands 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kernan WN, Viscoli CM, Makuch RW et al. Stratified randomization for clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 19–26.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diwan VK, Eriksson B, Sterky G, Tomson G. Randomization by group in studying the effect of drug information in primary care. Int J Epidemiol 1992; 21: 124–30.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donner A. An empirical study of cluster randomization. Int J Epidemiol 1982; 11: 283–6.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donner A, Donald A. Analysis of data arising from a stratified design with the cluster as unit of randomization. Stat Med 1987; 6: 43–52.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donner A. Sample size requirements for stratified cluster randomization designs [published erratum appears in Stat Med 1997; 16: 2927-8]. Stat Med 1992; 11: 743–50.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shipley MJ, Smith PG, Dramaix M. Calculation of power for matched pair studies when randomization is by group. Int J Epidemiol 1989; 18: 457–61.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Eijk MEC, Avorn J, Porsius AJ, de Boer A. Reducing prescribing of highly anticholinergic antidepressants for elderly people: randomised trial of group versus individual academic detailing.Br Med J 2001; 322: 654.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Szecsenyi J, Andres E, Bahrs O et al. Evaluation of a training program for moderators of panel doctor quality circles: a progress assessment. Z Arztl Fortbild (Jena) 1995; 89: 419–23.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guptill PB, Graham FE. Continuing education activities of physicians in solo and group practice: report on a pilot study. Med Care 1976; 14: 173–80.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paes AHP. Pharmacists and general practitioners in consultations? Contacts in primary health care. Utrecht, The Netherlands: University of Utrecht 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mulder J, Kroon Ad, Duijn J. Farmacotherapie-overleg in Nederland 1: hoe staat het ervoor en hoe kan het beter? [Peer review groups in the Netherlands, state of the art and how can it be improved?] Pharm Weekbl 1993; 128: 1236–1241.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mulder J, Kroon Ad, Duijn J. Farmacotherapie-overleg in Nederland 2: hoe staat het ervoor en hoe kan het beter? [Peer review groups in the Netherlands, state of the art and how can it be improved?] Pharm Weekbl 1993; 128: 1312–16.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grol R. Quality improvement by peer review in primary care: a practical guide. Qual Health Care 1994; 3: 147–52.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Vries CS. Collaboration in healthcare, the tango to drug safety [PhD]. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deen JBH. Verslag van farmacotherapie-gesprekken in Culemborg [Report of primary care practice meetings.] Pharm Weekbl 1974; 109: 585–9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. Third edition. New York: Free Press 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    NHS Centre for reviews and dissemination. Getting evidence into practice. York: University of York, February 1999. Volume 5 number 1.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grant J, Stanton F. The effectiveness of continuing professional development. Milton Keynes: Joint Centre for Education in Medicine, The Open University, March 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martine E.C. van Eijk
    • 1
    • 2
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arsenio H.P. Paes
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arijan Porsius
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jerry Avorn
    • 3
  • Anthonius de Boer
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacoepidemiology and PharmacotherapyUtrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical SciencesUtrechtthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Dutch Institute for Effective Use of MedicationUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Division of Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of MedicineBrigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations