Transferring scientific evidence to oncological practice: a trial on the impact of three different implementation strategies on antiemetic prescriptions

In 1996, a gap between the literature evidence for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis and the prescription pattern in clinical practice was demonstrated in a drug utilization study. This study, carried out in 103 Italian oncological centers (77 new; 26 old that participated in the previous study) evaluates three different intervention strategies to implement these guidelines. In cancer patients submitted to chemotherapy, prescriptions of antiemetics were prospectively monitored for 2 consecutive weeks in 1999. Simple diffusion of guidelines was evaluated in an observational study in the 77 new centers, while the double combination of simple diffusion and "audit and feedback" strategy was randomly compared in the old centers with the triple combination of the same two strategies plus an "educational outreach visit." Simple diffusion of guidelines improved the prescription but only for acute and delayed emesis induced by high-moderate emetogenic chemotherapy. No significant difference was detected in the prescriptions against cisplatin-induced emesis. The inappropriate use of 5-HT(3) antagonists for prophylaxis of low emetogenic chemotherapy was found most frequently. Similar poor results were achieved by the audit and feedback strategy, while the educational outreach visit significantly increased the prescription of the optimal prophylaxis for cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis. A combination of interventions, including an educational outreach visit, seems to be a good strategy for transferring the results of antiemetic research to oncological practice.