| Literature DB >> 33055116 |
Andre Q Andrade1, Vanessa T LeBlanc2, Lisa M Kalisch-Ellett2, Nicole L Pratt2, Anna Moffat2, Natalie Blacker2, Kerrie Westaway2, John D Barratt2, Elizabeth E Roughead2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Educational, and audit and feedback interventions are effective in promoting health professional behaviour change and evidence adoption. However, we lack evidence to pinpoint which particular features make them most effective. Our objective is to identify determinants of quality in professional behaviour change interventions, as perceived by participants.Entities:
Keywords: audit and feedback; behaviour change technique; primary care; professional behaviour change
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33055116 PMCID: PMC7559049 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Example of the audit and feedback document for the ‘recovering from pain’ topic.
Behaviour change techniques and how they were implemented in the prescriber feedback
| Behaviour change techniques (code according to behaviour change techniques Taxonomy v1) | Prescriber feedback implementation followed by an example |
| Prompt/cues (code 7.1) | Display of a message highlighting a patient-specific issue related to the current topic. For example, ‘Patient dispensed an antidepressant and has had no claim for DVA-funded psychological therapies in last 2 years.’ |
| Goal setting (code 1.1) | Display of the suggested action followed by a checkbox. For example ‘Action: consider review.’ |
| Discrepancy between current behaviour and goal (code 1.6) | Display questions about a patient condition that, if answered positively, suggest an action is required. For example, ‘Has adequate pain relief been achieved with current treatment approach? Could adjuvant pain medicine regime be changed?’ |
| Information about health consequences | Display the rationale for the suggested change. For example, ‘Patient prescribed different medicines that may increase their risk of heat-related illness (see therapeutic brief insert).’ |
| Feedback on behaviour (code 2.2) | Re-interpretation of the prescription data to provide additional data. For example, Translating 20/40 mg for low/high dose; providing drug burden indices. |
DVA, department of veterans’ affairs.
List of features extracted from the interventions
| Feature | Category |
| Number of images | Presentation |
| Number of tables | Presentation |
| Average section size (number of characters/number of headlines) | Presentation |
| Number of external links | Content |
| Polarity score | Content |
| Subjectivity score | Content |
| Number of medicine mentions | Content |
| Prompt/cues | Behaviour change technique |
| Goal setting | Behaviour change technique |
| Discrepancy between current behaviour and goal | Behaviour change technique |
| Information about health consequences | Behaviour change technique |
| Feedback on behaviour | Behaviour change technique |
Figure 2Usefulness score box plot by intervention theme.
Association between extracted features and perceived usefulness scores
| Behaviour technique | Mann-Whitney U statistics | P value | |
| Prompt | 155.0 | 0.030* | |
| Goal setting | 150.0 | 0.005* | |
| Discrepancy | 118.0 | 0.125 | |
| Health consequences | 70.0 | 0.554 | |
| Feedback | 161.0 | 0.234 | |
| Number of distinct behaviour change techniques | 1.79 (1.05) | 0.45 (0.19, 0.65) | 0.001* |
| Number of images | 0.60 (1.16) | 0.18 (0.11, 0.44) | 0.226 |
| Number of tables | 1.73 (1.23) | −0.16 (−0.42, 0.13) | 0.274 |
| Average section size in number of characters | 1718 (1094) | 0.11 (−0.18, 0.38) | 0.447 |
| Number of external links | 6.02 (7.07) | 0.25 (−0.04, 0.50) | 0.088 |
| Text polarity, score +1 to −1 | 0.079 (0.041) | 0.16 (−0.13, 0.42) | 0.283 |
| Text subjectivity, score +1 to −1 | 0.389 (0.057) | 0.10 (−0.18, 0.38) | 0.475 |
| Number of medicine mentions | 31.08 (23.83) | 0.17 (−0.11, 0.44) | 0.234 |
*Significant association (p<0.05).
Figure 3Average usefulness score of topics by number of behaviour techniques.