Heather Colquhoun1, Susan Michie2, Anne Sales3,4, Noah Ivers5, J M Grimshaw6,7, Kelly Carroll6, Mathieu Chalifoux6, Kevin Eva8, Jamie Brehaut6,9. 1. Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK. 3. Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 4. Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 5. Family and Community Medicine, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 8. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 9. Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a frequently used intervention aiming to support implementation of research evidence into clinical practice with positive, yet variable, effects. Our understanding of effective A&F has been limited by poor reporting and intervention heterogeneity. Our objective was to describe the extent of these issues. METHODS: Using a secondary review of A&F interventions and a consensus-based process to identify modifiable A&F elements, we examined intervention descriptions in 140 trials of A&F to quantify reporting limitations and describe the interventions. RESULTS: We identified 17 modifiable A&F intervention elements; 14 were examined to quantify reporting limitations and all 17 were used to describe the interventions. Clear reporting of the elements ranged from 56% to 97% with a median of 89%. There was considerable variation in A&F interventions with 51% for individual providers only, 92% targeting behaviour change and 79% targeting processes of care, 64% performed by the provider group and 81% reporting aggregate patient data. CONCLUSIONS: Our process identified 17 A&F design elements, demonstrated gaps in reporting and helped understand the degree of variation in A&F interventions. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a frequently used intervention aiming to support implementation of research evidence into clinical practice with positive, yet variable, effects. Our understanding of effective A&F has been limited by poor reporting and intervention heterogeneity. Our objective was to describe the extent of these issues. METHODS: Using a secondary review of A&F interventions and a consensus-based process to identify modifiable A&F elements, we examined intervention descriptions in 140 trials of A&F to quantify reporting limitations and describe the interventions. RESULTS: We identified 17 modifiable A&F intervention elements; 14 were examined to quantify reporting limitations and all 17 were used to describe the interventions. Clear reporting of the elements ranged from 56% to 97% with a median of 89%. There was considerable variation in A&F interventions with 51% for individual providers only, 92% targeting behaviour change and 79% targeting processes of care, 64% performed by the provider group and 81% reporting aggregate patient data. CONCLUSIONS: Our process identified 17 A&F design elements, demonstrated gaps in reporting and helped understand the degree of variation in A&F interventions. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Timothy Tuti; Jacinta Nzinga; Martin Njoroge; Benjamin Brown; Niels Peek; Mike English; Chris Paton; Sabine N van der Veer Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Vera Yakovchenko; Kristine DeSotto; Mari-Lynn Drainoni; William Lukesh; Donald R Miller; Angela Park; Qing Shao; David J Thornton; Allen L Gifford Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Benjamin Brown; Panos Balatsoukas; Richard Williams; Matthew Sperrin; Iain Buchan Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2016-07-16 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Heather L Colquhoun; Kelly Carroll; Kevin W Eva; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Noah Ivers; Susan Michie; Anne Sales; Jamie C Brehaut Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Clara Bermúdez-Tamayo; Emilia Fernández Ruiz; Guadalupe Pastor Moreno; Gracia Maroto-Navarro; Leticia Garcia-Mochon; Francisco Jose Perez-Ramos; Africa Caño-Aguilar; Maria Del Pilar Velez Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 3.223