Introduction: We previously reported that a targeted knowledge translation (KT) intervention was associated with a trend towards increased awareness and knowledge of the Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC) emergency medicine (EM) recommendations. We wished to assess if the intervention changed physician practice, specifically looking at the imperative “do not order lumbar XRs for non-traumatic low back pain unless red flags exist”. Methods: A departmental KT initiative was implemented in April 2016 and consisted of a 1-hour seminar reviewing the CWC-EM recommendations, access to a video cast, departmental posters, and a before and after awareness survey. The effectiveness of our intervention was assessed by analyzing the frequency of lumbar XR imaging conducted for low back pain before and after the introduction of our intervention at a tertiary teaching hospital emergency department. All patient visits for the complaint of low back pain were included. The rates of XR imaging from June 2014 to September 2014 for the pre-intervention period and June 2016 to September 2016 for the post-intervention period were collected and analyzed using Fisher exact tests. A sample size of 683 was required to detect a 5% change with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 80%. Results: Baseline characteristics of patients were similar for the pre- and post-intervention periods. There was a total of 781 patient visits for low back pain in June to September 2014 and 672 in June to September 2016. The XR imaging rate for low back pain increased from 12% (95% CI 9.9-14.5) to 16.2% (95% CI 13.6-19.2) following the intervention (p=0.023). Conclusion: We previously demonstrated a trend towards increased awareness and knowledge of the CWC EM recommendations following a knowledge translation initiative. Baseline XR imaging rates for low back pain were lower than what has been reported. We observed that our intervention was associated with an increased frequency of imaging for low back pain. This may be due to a contrarian effect. We feel this calls into question the role of knowledge translation initiatives where physician practice already closely adheres to pre-established recommendations.

Introduction: Choosing Wisely is an innovative approach to address physician and patient attitudes towards low value medical tests; however, a knowledge translation (KT) gap exists. We aimed to quantify the baseline familiarity of emergency medicine (EM) physicians with the Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC) EM recommendations. We then assessed whether a structured KT initiative affected knowledge and awareness. Methods: Physicians working in urban (tertiary teaching hospital, Saint John, NB) and rural (community teaching hospital, Waterville, NB) emergency departments were asked to participate in a survey assessing awareness and knowledge of the first five CWC EM recommendations before an educational intervention. The intervention consisted of a 1-hour seminar reviewing the recommendations, access to a video cast and departmental posters. Knowledge was assessed by asking respondents to identify 80% or more of the recommendations correctly. Physicians were surveyed again at a 6-month follow up period. The Fisher exact test was used for statistical analyses. A sample size of 36 was required to detect a 30% change with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 80%. Results: At the urban site, 16 of 25 (64%) physicians responded to the pre- and 14 of 26 (53.8%) responded to the post-intervention survey. Awareness of the EM recommendations did not increase significantly (81.3% pre; 95% CI 56.2-94.2 vs. 92.9% post; 66.4-99.9; p=0.60). There was a weak trend towards improved knowledge with 62.5% (38.5-81.6) of physicians responding correctly initially, and 85.7% (58.8-97.2; p=0.23) after the intervention. At the rural site, 8 of 11 (72.7%) physicians responded to the pre- and post-intervention survey. There was a trend towards improved awareness, (25% pre; 6.3-59.9 vs. 75% post; 40.1-93.7; p=0.13), with 50% (21.5-78.5) responding correctly pre, and 87.5% (50.8-99.9; p=0.28) after the intervention. Conclusion: We have described the current awareness and knowledge of the CWC EM recommendations. Limited by our small sample size, we report a trend towards increased awareness and knowledge at 6 months following our KT initiative in a rural setting where there was a low baseline awareness. At the urban site where baseline knowledge was high, changes seen were less significant. Further work will look at the effectiveness of our initiative on physician practice.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate doctors' knowledge of the relative and absolute costs of diagnostic tests, medical consumables (e.g., syringes or intravenous tubing), and healthcare visits as well as to determine factors influencing awareness.

Methods: For this systematic review, we searched the Cochrane Library, EconoLit, EMBASE, and MEDLINE; reviewed reference lists; and had contact with authors. Studies were included if either doctors or trainees were surveyed, there were >10 survey respondents, costs of diagnostic or therapeutic items were estimated, results were expressed quantitatively, and a clear description was provided of how authors defined Accurate Estimates and determined True Cost. Two authors reviewed each article for eligibility and extracted data independently. Cost accuracy outcomes were summarized, but data were not combined due to extensive heterogeneity.

Results: Fourteen articles were included in the final analysis. Cost accuracy was low; 33 percent of estimates were within 20 percent or 25 percent of true cost and 50 percent were within 50 percent or in the 50–200 percent range of the true cost. Country, year of study, level of training, and specialty did not impact accuracy. The cost of items appears to have no impact on the accuracy (Fisher's exact test, p = .41) or pattern of estimation (binomial test, p = .92).

Conclusions: Doctors have a limited understanding of diagnostic and nondrug therapeutic costs, and we could not identify anything that impacts understanding of these costs. More focus is required in the education of physicians about costs and the access to cost information.