Intervention 2 Results
nonadherence, DDIs
REGRESSION
We wanted to determine whether the educational materials increased awareness of nonadherence or DDIs and if so, how this impacted practice and test ordering by physicians.Overall, intervention 2 only ordered the CDM test in 12.4% of patient cases with no significant difference by case variant (p = 0.892). When given the option of ordering the CDM test after reviewing the education materials, they had a nonsignificant improvement in their DxTx domain scores for NA cases of + 2.0%, (p = 0.542) and no improvement in the other case variants when compared to baseline scores. When we looked at diagnosing NA, the second intervention improved from 4.8 to 14.8% (p = 0.031), while the control remained the same (p = 0.989). Intervention 2 also improved from 9.6 to 18.5% in diagnosing DDIs (p = 0.102). When we controlled for physician and practice characteristics, we found a 3.6 × (95% C.I. 0.3–34.8) improvement by intervention 2 to identify nonadherence in the NA patient cases and 1.9 × (95% C.I. 0.4–9.8) improvement in treatment compared to controls. Similarly, for the DDI cases, intervention 2 was 2.3 × (95% C.I. 0.5–9.4) more likely to identify the patient’s DDI and 1.5 × (95% C.I. 0.5–4.4) more likely to treat it.We split intervention 2 into two subgroups and analyzed those who chose to order the CDM test (Int2A) and those who did not order the test (Int2B). At baseline, there was no difference between the two subgroups. However, after introducing the education materials, Int2A were significantly better in DxTx (43.2%±24.8% vs. 21.2%±14.0%), making the appropriate primary diagnosis (60.0% vs. 18.9%, p < 0.001), and in discontinuing the offending agent(s) (50.0% vs. 18.2%, p < 0.001) compared to Int2B.Int2A had similar scores to intervention 1, and Int2B scored similarly to control (Table 
Intervention 2 Comparison by CDM Usage Versus Control, Multivariate Regression Modeling* p < 0.05** p < 0.01*** p < 0.001