Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT05575115

Non-Inferiority of Peer Comparison Interventions

The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the Peer Comparison intervention in the Use of Behavioral Economics to Improve Treatment of Acute Respiratory Infections (BEARI) trial (Meeker et al. 2016) promoting antibiotic stewardship did not adversely impact physician job satisfaction as measured in the study exit survey at trial completion. Detrimental impacts on job satisfaction is a phenomenon that was observed in a randomized controlled trial using a Peer Comparison intervention with different characteristics from the BEARI trial. (Reiff et al. 2022) The BEARI trial sample size, intraclass correlation, and measurement of job satisfaction are comparable to Reiff et al. 2022.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

About this study

This secondary analysis includes all providers from the Use of Behavioral Economics to Improve Treatment of Acute Respiratory Infections (BEARI) trial who completed the exit survey following 18 month trial completion. The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the Peer Comparison intervention in the BEARI trial (Meeker et al. 2016) promoting antibiotic stewardship did not adversely impact physician job satisfaction. Detrimental impacts on job satisfaction is a phenomenon that was observed in a randomized controlled trial using a Peer Comparison intervention with different characteristics from the BEARI trial. (Reiff et al. 2022) The BEARI trial sample size, intraclass correlation, and measurement of job satisfaction are comparable to Reiff et al. 2022.

The differences in Peer Comparison interventions between BEARI and Reiff et al. include the following:

  • Differences in physicians' control and agency over patient adherence to screening recommendations vs. their own antibiotic prescribing
  • Relatedly, in the antibiotic stewardship study, there were achievable benchmarks for improvement, including a feedback and ranking framework allowing all physicians to attain the highest status and thus obtain positive feedback.
  • Differences in framing and presentation of messages

The investigators define a clinically significant detrimental effect on job satisfaction as 27% of individuals reducing job satisfaction ratings by one point on a 5-point likert scale. This shift is equivalent to a mean difference of 0.32 and a Cohen's d of 0.36. This difference corresponds to approximately a ⅓ reduction in job satisfaction on a 5-point likert scale.

H0: The BEARI Peer Comparison intervention had a clinically and statistically significant detrimental effect on physician job satisfaction. Control-PeerComparison>=0.32

HA: The Peer Comparison intervention had no clinically significant negative impact on physician job satisfaction. Control-PeerComparison<0.32

The investigators will conduct a traditional hypothesis test Control-PeerComparison= 0.0 as a secondary analysis.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • All providers included in the BEARI trial

Exclusion criteria

  • N/A

Treatment and study plan

Peer Comparison

Behavioral

Peer comparison was an email-based intervention. Clinicians were ranked from highest to lowest inappropriate prescribing rate within each region using EHR data. Clinicians with the lowest inappropriate prescribing rates (the top-performing decile) were told via monthly email they were "Top Performers". The remaining clinicians were told that they were "Not a Top Performer" in an email that included the number and proportion of antibiotic prescriptions they wrote for antibiotic-inappropriate acute respiratory tract infections, compared with the proportion written by top performers.

Primary outcomes

  1. Job satisfaction

    Time frame: 18 months

    Impact of BEARI Peer Comparison intervention on Job Satisfaction, as measured by the following question completed as part of the BEARI trial exit survey: "Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement. Overall, I am satisfied with my current job."

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Southern California

Other

Collaborators

  • National Institute on Aging (NIA)

Registry information

Official study title

Non-Inferiority of Peer Comparison Interventions vs. Control Condition in BEARI Trial

Important dates

Study start
2011
Primary completion
2014
Study completion
2014
First posted
Oct 12, 2022
Registry last updated
Oct 12, 2022

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.