Background Evidence-based medicine (EBM) involves the care of patients using the best available evidence from the results of good quality clinical research to guide clinical decision making 1 – 3. By incorporating the principles of Evidence-based Medicine (EBM), the family practitioner would be able to treat a patient according to the best clinical research available. This principle is implemented widely in the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom and Europe. In South Africa, however, EBM is not yet as widely incorporated into family practice. This is so despite the plethora of websites available to practitioners and the relative ease with which applicable research evidence can be found. Very few published studies are available regarding EBM or Evidence–based Practice (EBP) in the South African context. The findings of this study would thus highlight reasons and/ or barriers preventing family practitioners from implementing EBM in their respective practices. This could also lead to further research into possible methods of implementation of EBM into South African family practices. Aim: The aim of the study was to describe the perceptions, knowledge and attitudes of private practitioners regarding evidence based practice and to identify the barriers encountered in evidence based practice. Methods A questionnaire survey of general practitioners in Gauteng, South Africa, was conducted. Questionnaires were distributed to a random sample of practitioners in the Gauteng region. Two hundred and twenty one (221) practitioners participated in the survey and responded to questionnaires mailed to them. The questionnaire was mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the practitioners, which they then completed and returned for statistical analysis. Study design The study design is that of quantitative, statistical analysis (descriptive cross-sectional survey). Setting General practitioners were randomly selected from a list of practitioners in the Gauteng Province. Doing a nationwide survey would have been a mammoth undertaking. It was therefore decided to limit the research to one province and therefore it was only concentrated on practitioners practicing in the Gauteng area. Results It is interesting to note that of the two hundred and twenty one participants in this study; only 10% of the practitioners were against using EBM in their practices. This, however, stands in stark contrast to the 56% of practitioners who do not implement EBM in their practices or make use of the EBM principle at all. The major barriers preventing practitioners from implementing EBM is depicted in the following graph: Lack of time and the training in aspects of Evidence-based medicine were the main barriers preventing the full scale implementation of EBM in family practices in Gauteng. Conclusion Participating Gauteng doctors were in principle, very positive towards the implementation of EBM in their respective practices. Most of the participants agreed that EBM would benefit their patients’ care and treatment. Very few of the participants, however, make use of EBM in practice. A lack of training and time constraints were the main barriers with regards to the implementation of EBM. Proper training of medical students at undergraduate level at faculties of health sciences, would go a long way assisting prospective doctors in mastering the concept of EBM and increasing their overall awareness of EBM. Further definitive research would assist in establishing whether such awareness would be associated with improved implementation of evidence in the form of evidence based guidelines in practice.

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a chronic pain condition with significant societal and personal burdens of illness. Chronic opioid therapy in the treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain has increased drastically over the past decade. This is a worrisome trend in general, but specifically, given the pathophysiologic characteristics seen in fibromyalgia syndrome patients, the use of this class of medication deserves special scrutiny. Although the theoretical case against this therapy choice is strong, little empirical evidence exists. In order to supplement this literature, retrospective analysis methods are utilized to examine the association of state-, provider-, and patient level characteristics with the prevalence of chronic opioid use in this disease state. Data gathered through this analysis is then used to develop a propensity index for the identification of an appropriate control group for fibromyalgia patients, a task that has proven difficult in the literature to date. Using propensity stratification and matching techniques analysis of the impact of fibromyalgia, chronic opioid use, and the interaction of these two variables are undertaken. Several key findings and updates to the understanding of chronic opioid use and fibromyalgia syndrome are reported. Wide geographic variation in chronic opioid utilization between states is seen. The role of diagnosing provider type in the rate of chronic opioid prescribing is significant and can be aggregated at various levels. Demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and concurrent medication use are all important associates of chronic opioid use in fibromyalgia syndrome. Additionally, chronic opioid use in fibromyalgia patients, independent of propensity to receive that therapy choice is a significant correlate with healthcare costs. A diagnosis of fibromyalgia is a statistically significant source of healthcare costs, though the clinical significance of its impact when compared to a closely matched control group is minimized. Despite the minimization of the role of this diagnosis the impact of the interaction of chronic opioid use with fibromyalgia, despite control for myriad regressors, is significant both statistically and clinically.

Background: The East Tennessee State University Quillen College of Medicine Library has participated for several years in projects to provide rural clinicians with health information resources. Objectives: To determine whether a strategy of hand‐held devices with a best‐evidence point‐of‐care disease tool and a drug database paired with access to a medical library for full‐text articles and training to use the tools would be an affordable way to meet the information needs of rural underserved clinicians. Methods: This study is a mixed‐methods methodology. The first project was evaluated using a randomised controlled trial (RCT) methodology. The second was evaluated qualitatively using interviews and focus groups. Results: The quantitative findings discovered that clinicians equipped with a hand‐held device with evidence‐based software more frequently found answers to clinical questions, found answers more quickly, were more satisfied with information they found and use expensive resources such as continuing medical education, online databases and textbooks less than the group that did not have access to online technology. Qualitative results supported the quantitative findings. Conclusion: Librarians can implement a three‐pronged strategy of the secondary literature via a hand‐held, the primary literature via Loansome Doc and quality training to meet basic information needs of rural clinicians.

The exponential growth in medical pharmaceuticals and related clinical trials have created a need to better understand the decision-making factors in the processes for developing hospital medication formularies. The purpose of the study was to identify, rank, and compare major factors impacting hospital formulary decision-making among three prescriber groups serving on a hospital's pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee. Prescribers were selected from the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center which is a large, multi-facility, academic oncology hospital. Specifically, the prescriber groups studied were comprised of physicians, midlevel providers, and pharmacists. A self-administered online survey was disseminated to participants. Seven major hospital formulary decision-making factors were identified in the scientific literature. Study participants were asked to respond to questions about each of the hospital formulary decision-making factors and to rank the various formulary decision-making factors from the factor deemed most important to the factor deemed least important. There are five major conclusions drawn from the study including three similarities and two significant differences among the prescriber groups and factors. Similarities include: (1) the factor "pharmacy staff's evaluation of medical evidence including formulary recommendations" was ranked highest for all three prescriber groups; (2) "evaluation of medications by expert physicians" was ranked second for physicians and midlevel providers while pharmacists ranked it third; and (3) the factor, "financial impact of the treatment to the patient" was fifth in terms of hospital formulary decision-making statement and ranking by all three prescriber groups. Two significant differences include: (1) for the hospital-formulary decision making statement, "I consider the number of patients affected by adding, removing, or modifying a drug on the formulary when making hospital medication formulary decisions," midlevel providers considered this factor of significantly greater importance than did physicians; and (2) for the ranked hospital formulary decision-making factor, "financial impact of treatment to the institution," pharmacists ranked this factor significantly higher than did physicians. This study contributes to a greater understanding of the three prescriber groups serving on a P&T committee. Also, the study contributes to the body of literature regarding decision-making processes in medicine and specifically factors impacting hospital formulary decision-making. Furthermore, this study has the potential to impact the operational guidelines for the P&T committee at the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center as well as other hospitals.