4. The sample was 195 Allina Medical Clinic physicians who had below average (for Allina Medical Clinic) optimal diabetes care rates. The physicians that had between15 and 23% were the comparison group. The doctors with <15% score were entered into the CPR for diabetes care program. The state average was 17%, so this group contained physicians that exceeded state average, but it is close enough that it seems it would be representative of the lower performing physicians. There was no mention of doctors being able to opt out of the study. If they fit the criteria, they participated which should eliminate any bias in the sampling. It is not mentioned how the optimal diabetes care score is monitored and what sort of quality assurance there may be on that number (Frederick et al., 2013).
5. The study took the two groups of physicians and put them both into continuing education workshops on diabetes care. In addition, the group of doctors with the lowest rates was put through the comprehensive CPR for diabetes care program (Frederick et al., 2013). This means the groups were not chosen randomly, the group that had the variable applied to them did so because of their especially low scores with diabetic care. To find the results, electronic medical records were used to gain the physicians new optimal diabetes care score after the training had been completed. The comparison group was sent an email survey to ask their opinion about how much they felt they learned. There was bias, not all the participants were sent surveys. Only 46% returned them. A second survey was mailed to the group that went through the entire program. It was only sent to ~86% of the group and 79% of them returned it (Frederick et al., 2013). Since the surveys were sent using two different methods and sent to varying percentages of the groups, the results cannot be compared reliably.
References
Frederick, M., L., Johnson, P., Jo, Duffee, J., & McCarthy, B., D. (2013). Coaching of...