BACKGROUND: Many people advocate audit and feedback as a strategy for improving professional practice. The main results of an update of a Cochrane review on the effects of audit and feedback are reported. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register up to January 2004 was searched. Randomised trials of audit and feedback that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes were included. REVIEW METHODS: Data were independently extracted and the quality of studies were assessed by two reviewers. Quantitative, visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. MAIN RESULTS: 118 trials are included in the review. In the primary analysis, 88 comparisons from 72 studies were included that compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a component to no intervention. For dichotomous outcomes, the median-adjusted risk difference of compliance with desired practice was 5% (interquartile range 3-11). For continuous outcomes, the median-adjusted percentage change relative to control was 16% (interquartile range 5-37). Low baseline compliance with recommended practice and higher intensity of audit and feedback appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. The effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low and intensity of audit and feedback is high.
BACKGROUND: Many people advocate audit and feedback as a strategy for improving professional practice. The main results of an update of a Cochrane review on the effects of audit and feedback are reported. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register up to January 2004 was searched. Randomised trials of audit and feedback that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes were included. REVIEW METHODS: Data were independently extracted and the quality of studies were assessed by two reviewers. Quantitative, visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. MAIN RESULTS: 118 trials are included in the review. In the primary analysis, 88 comparisons from 72 studies were included that compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a component to no intervention. For dichotomous outcomes, the median-adjusted risk difference of compliance with desired practice was 5% (interquartile range 3-11). For continuous outcomes, the median-adjusted percentage change relative to control was 16% (interquartile range 5-37). Low baseline compliance with recommended practice and higher intensity of audit and feedback appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. The effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low and intensity of audit and feedback is high.
Authors: J M Grimshaw; L Shirran; R Thomas; G Mowatt; C Fraser; L Bero; R Grilli; E Harvey; A Oxman; M A O'Brien Journal: Med Care Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: M Eccles; N Steen; J Grimshaw; L Thomas; P McNamee; J Soutter; J Wilsdon; L Matowe; G Needham; F Gilbert; S Bond Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-05-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mike R Robling; Helen L A Houston; Paul Kinnersley; Margaret D Hourihan; David R Cohen; Janine Hale; Kerry Hood Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: R Hayes; D Bratzler; B Armour; L Moore; C Murray; B R Stevens; M Radford; D Fitzgerald; K Elward; D J Ballard Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Improv Date: 2001-03
Authors: E Guadagnoli; S B Soumerai; J H Gurwitz; C Borbas; C L Shapiro; J C Weeks; N Morris Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Barclay T Stewart; Adam Gyedu; Robert Quansah; Wilfred Larbi Addo; Akis Afoko; Pius Agbenorku; Forster Amponsah-Manu; James Ankomah; Ebenezer Appiah-Denkyira; Peter Baffoe; Sam Debrah; Peter Donkor; Theodor Dorvlo; Kennedy Japiong; Adam L Kushner; Martin Morna; Anthony Ofosu; Victor Oppong-Nketia; Stephen Tabiri; Charles Mock Journal: Injury Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Latifa M Baynouna; Amal I Shamsan; Tahira A Ali; Lolowa A Al Mukini; Moza H Al Kuwiti; Thuraya A Al Ameri; Nico J D Nagelkerke; Ahmad M Abusamak; Nader M Ahmed; Sanaa M Zein Al Deen; Tariq M Jaber; Abdulkarim M Elkhalid; Anthony D Revel; Alhusini I Al Husaini; Fouad A Nour; Hayat O Ahmad; Mohammad K Nazirudeen; Rowaya Al Dhahiri; Yahya O Zain Al Abdeen; Aziza O Omar Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-02-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: J Frederik Frøen; Halit Pinar; Vicki Flenady; Safiah Bahrin; Adrian Charles; Lawrence Chauke; Katie Day; Charles W Duke; Fabio Facchinetti; Ruth C Fretts; Glenn Gardener; Kristen Gilshenan; Sanne J Gordijn; Adrienne Gordon; Grace Guyon; Catherine Harrison; Rachel Koshy; Robert C Pattinson; Karin Petersson; Laurie Russell; Eli Saastad; Gordon C S Smith; Rozbeh Torabi Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2009-06-10 Impact factor: 3.007