Sylvia J Hysong1. 1. Houston VA HSR&D Center of Excellence, Health Services Research & Development Service, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, TX, USA. hysong@bcm.tmc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) has long been used to improve quality of care, albeit with variable results. This meta-analytic study tested whether Feedback Intervention Theory, a framework from industrial/organizational psychology, explains the observed variability in health care A&F research. DATA SOURCE: studies cited by Jamtvedt's 2006 Cochrane systematic review of A&F, followed by database searches using the Cochrane review's search strategy to identify more recent studies. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Cochrane review criteria, plus: presence of a treatment group receiving only A & F; a control group receiving no intervention; a quantitatively measurable outcome; minimum n of 10 per arm; sufficient statistics for effect size calculations. Moderators: presence of discouragement and praise; correct solution, attainment level, velocity, frequency, and normative information; feedback format (verbal, textual, graphic, public, computerized, group vs. individual); goal setting activity. PROCEDURE: meta-analytic procedures using the Hedges-Olkin method. RESULTS: Of 519 studies initially identified, 19 met all inclusion criteria. Studies were most often excluded due to the lack of a feedback-only arm. A&F has a modest, though significant positive effect on quality outcomes (d = 0.40, 95% confidence interval = +/-0.20); providing specific suggestions for improvement, written, and more frequent feedback strengthened this effect, whereas graphical and verbal feedback attenuated this effect. CONCLUSIONS: A&F effectiveness is improved when feedback is delivered with specific suggestions for improvement, in writing, and frequently. Other feedback characteristics could also potentially improve effectiveness; however, research with stricter experimental controls is needed to identify the specific feedback characteristics that maximize its effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) has long been used to improve quality of care, albeit with variable results. This meta-analytic study tested whether Feedback Intervention Theory, a framework from industrial/organizational psychology, explains the observed variability in health care A&F research. DATA SOURCE: studies cited by Jamtvedt's 2006 Cochrane systematic review of A&F, followed by database searches using the Cochrane review's search strategy to identify more recent studies. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Cochrane review criteria, plus: presence of a treatment group receiving only A & F; a control group receiving no intervention; a quantitatively measurable outcome; minimum n of 10 per arm; sufficient statistics for effect size calculations. Moderators: presence of discouragement and praise; correct solution, attainment level, velocity, frequency, and normative information; feedback format (verbal, textual, graphic, public, computerized, group vs. individual); goal setting activity. PROCEDURE: meta-analytic procedures using the Hedges-Olkin method. RESULTS: Of 519 studies initially identified, 19 met all inclusion criteria. Studies were most often excluded due to the lack of a feedback-only arm. A&F has a modest, though significant positive effect on quality outcomes (d = 0.40, 95% confidence interval = +/-0.20); providing specific suggestions for improvement, written, and more frequent feedback strengthened this effect, whereas graphical and verbal feedback attenuated this effect. CONCLUSIONS: A&F effectiveness is improved when feedback is delivered with specific suggestions for improvement, in writing, and frequently. Other feedback characteristics could also potentially improve effectiveness; however, research with stricter experimental controls is needed to identify the specific feedback characteristics that maximize its effectiveness.
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: J M Grimshaw; R E Thomas; G MacLennan; C Fraser; C R Ramsay; L Vale; P Whitty; M P Eccles; L Matowe; L Shirran; M Wensing; R Dijkstra; C Donaldson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Laura A Petersen; LeChauncy D Woodard; Tracy Urech; Christina Daw; Supicha Sookanan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-08-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Charles J Bentz; K Bruce Bayley; Kerry E Bonin; Lori Fleming; Jack F Hollis; Jacquelyn S Hunt; Benjamin LeBlanc; Tim McAfee; Nicola Payne; Joseph Siemienczuk Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: David A Davis; Paul E Mazmanian; Michael Fordis; R Van Harrison; Kevin E Thorpe; Laure Perrier Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lisa A Cooper; Jill A Marsteller; Kathryn A Carson; Katherine B Dietz; Romsai T Boonyasai; Carmen Alvarez; Chidinma A Ibe; Deidra C Crews; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Edgar R Miller; Cheryl R Dennison-Himmelfarb; Lisa H Lubomski; Tanjala S Purnell; Felicia Hill-Briggs; Nae-Yuh Wang Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Elaine L Larson; Meghan T Murray; Bevin Cohen; Edwin Simpser; Marianne Pavia; Olivia Jackson; Haomiao Jia; R Gordon Hutcheon; Linda Mosiello; Natalie Neu; Lisa Saiman Journal: Behav Med Date: 2017-03-03 Impact factor: 3.104
Authors: Raymond J Malapero; Rodney A Gabriel; Robert Gimlich; Jesse M Ehrenfeld; Beverly K Philip; David W Bates; Richard D Urman Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Jochen Profit; Katri V Typpo; Sylvia J Hysong; LeChauncy D Woodard; Michael A Kallen; Laura A Petersen Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-02-09 Impact factor: 7.327