During the intervention period, the e-mails were distributed three times, each reaching in excess of 16,500 individuals. There were a total of 886 visits to the web site, 207 downloads of a poster of reportable diseases, 130 downloads of the handheld device reporting program, and 122 downloads of the Philadelphia Department of Public Health case report form. From the baseline to the intervention period, there was a mean increase of 5.6 reports in the intervention group and a mean decrease of 3.0 reports in the control group.
The difference between the two groups was significant and supported the protocol as a way to increase reporting among clinicians, Ward said. Using the internet had not yet been studied. Past studies have examined costly, time-intensive and unsustainable methods to increase reporting such as newsletters and mailed reminders.
In contrast to other methods studied, Ward and his colleagues believe their method is affordable and sustainable, with a format thats easily understood by todays internet-savvy clinician. They estimate that only 26 hours of person-time and $350 were used in developing the internet page, handheld computer program and e-mail memorandums, not including the cost of establishing and maintaining the underlying hospital web site.
Despite the promising results, more works lies ahead for Ward in educating clinicians about the importance of reporting diseases. A review of the disease coding data strongly suggests significant underreporting, even in the intervention hospitals used for this study, he said.
Reasons for physician underreporting are numerous. Some physicians incorrectly believe that if a laboratory reports a disease, they are not required to d
'/>"/>
| Contact: Eryn Jelesiewicz dobeck@temple.edu 215-707-0730 Temple University Source:Eurekalert |