Importance: Academic detailing (interactive educational outreach) is a widely used strategy to encourage evidence-based prescribing by clinicians.
Objective: To evaluate academic detailing programs targeted at improving prescribing behavior and describe program aspects associated with positive outcomes.
Evidence review: A systematic search of MEDLINE from April 1, 2007, through December 31, 2022, was performed for randomized trials and nonrandomized studies of academic detailing interventions to improve prescribing. Academic detailing was defined as evidence-based medication education outreach delivered interactively to individuals or small groups of prescribers. Only studies that measured prescribing outcomes were included. Two investigators independently assessed studies for risk of bias using validated assessment tools. Among all studies rated as having low risk of bias and randomized trials rated as having moderate risk of bias, the absolute change in the proportion of patients using the targeted medications and the proportion of studies that led to significant changes in 1 or more prescribing outcome were determined. The data analysis was performed between January 25, 2022, and November 4, 2024.
Findings: The 118 studies identified varied by setting (eg, inpatient, outpatient) and academic detailing delivery (eg, individual vs groups of prescribers). The most common therapeutic targets were antibiotic overuse (32 studies [27%]), opioid prescribing (24 studies [20%]), and management of mental health conditions (16 studies [14%]) and cardiovascular disease (13 studies [11%]). Most studies (66 [56%]) combined academic detailing with other interventions (eg, audit and feedback, electronic health record reminders). Among 36 studies deemed to have the lowest risk of bias, 18 interventions (50%; 95% CI, 33%-67%) led to significant improvements in all prescribing outcomes, and 7 (19%; 95% CI, 8%-36%) led to significant improvements in 1 or more prescribing outcomes. The median absolute change in the proportion of patients using the targeted medication or medications was 4.0% (IQR, 0.3%-11.3%) in the intended direction.
Conclusions and relevance: In this systematic review of academic detailing interventions addressing evidence-based prescribing, most interventions led to substantial changes in prescribing behavior, although the quality of evidence varied. These findings support the use of academic detailing to bring about more evidence-based prescribing in a variety of clinical settings.