Heather L Colquhoun1, Kelly Carroll2, Kevin W Eva3, Jeremy M Grimshaw2,4, Noah Ivers5, Susan Michie6, Jamie C Brehaut2,7. 1. Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1V7, Canada. heather.colquhoun@utoronto.ca. 2. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Practice Changing Research, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada. 3. Centre for Health Education Scholarship, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4E3, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8M5, Canada. 5. Department of Family Medicine, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, M5S 1B2, Canada. 6. Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. 7. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions are one of the most common approaches for implementing evidence-based practices. A key barrier to more effective A&F interventions is the lack of a theory-guided approach to the accumulation of evidence. Recent interviews with theory experts identified 313 theory-informed hypotheses, spread across 30 themes, about how to create more effective A&F interventions. In the current survey, we sought to elicit from stakeholders which hypotheses were most likely to advance the field if studied further. METHODS: From the list of 313, three members of the research team identified 216 that were clear and distinguishable enough for prioritization. A web-based survey was then sent to 211 A&F intervention stakeholders asking them to choose up to 50 'priority' hypotheses following the header "A&F interventions will be more effective if…". Analyses included frequencies of endorsement of the individual hypotheses and themes into which they were grouped. RESULTS: 68 of the 211 invited participants responded to the survey. Seven hypotheses were chosen by > 50% of respondents, including A&F interventions will be more effective… "if feedback is provided by a trusted source"; "if recipients are involved in the design/development of the feedback intervention"; "if recommendations related to the feedback are based on good quality evidence"; "if the behaviour is under the control of the recipient"; "if it addresses barriers and facilitators (drivers) to behaviour change"; "if it suggests clear action plans"; and "if target/goal/optimal rates are clear and explicit". The most endorsed theme was Recipient Priorities (four hypotheses were chosen 92 times as a 'priority' hypotheses). CONCLUSIONS: This work determined a set of hypotheses thought by respondents to be to be most likely to advance the field through future A&F intervention research. This work can inform a coordinated research agenda that may more efficiently lead to more effective A&F interventions.
BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions are one of the most common approaches for implementing evidence-based practices. A key barrier to more effective A&F interventions is the lack of a theory-guided approach to the accumulation of evidence. Recent interviews with theory experts identified 313 theory-informed hypotheses, spread across 30 themes, about how to create more effective A&F interventions. In the current survey, we sought to elicit from stakeholders which hypotheses were most likely to advance the field if studied further. METHODS: From the list of 313, three members of the research team identified 216 that were clear and distinguishable enough for prioritization. A web-based survey was then sent to 211 A&F intervention stakeholders asking them to choose up to 50 'priority' hypotheses following the header "A&F interventions will be more effective if…". Analyses included frequencies of endorsement of the individual hypotheses and themes into which they were grouped. RESULTS: 68 of the 211 invited participants responded to the survey. Seven hypotheses were chosen by > 50% of respondents, including A&F interventions will be more effective… "if feedback is provided by a trusted source"; "if recipients are involved in the design/development of the feedback intervention"; "if recommendations related to the feedback are based on good quality evidence"; "if the behaviour is under the control of the recipient"; "if it addresses barriers and facilitators (drivers) to behaviour change"; "if it suggests clear action plans"; and "if target/goal/optimal rates are clear and explicit". The most endorsed theme was Recipient Priorities (four hypotheses were chosen 92 times as a 'priority' hypotheses). CONCLUSIONS: This work determined a set of hypotheses thought by respondents to be to be most likely to advance the field through future A&F intervention research. This work can inform a coordinated research agenda that may more efficiently lead to more effective A&F interventions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Audit and feedback; Implementation science; Knowledge translation; Research agenda; Theory
Authors: Noah Ivers; Gro Jamtvedt; Signe Flottorp; Jane M Young; Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Simon D French; Mary Ann O'Brien; Marit Johansen; Jeremy Grimshaw; Andrew D Oxman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-06-13
Authors: Jamie C Brehaut; Heather L Colquhoun; Kevin W Eva; Kelly Carroll; Anne Sales; Susan Michie; Noah Ivers; Jeremy M Grimshaw Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Heather L Colquhoun; Jamie C Brehaut; Anne Sales; Noah Ivers; Jeremy Grimshaw; Susan Michie; Kelly Carroll; Mathieu Chalifoux; Kevin W Eva Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-06-10 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Noah M Ivers; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Gro Jamtvedt; Signe Flottorp; Mary Ann O'Brien; Simon D French; Jane Young; Jan Odgaard-Jensen Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Nicole M Rankin; Deborah McGregor; Phyllis N Butow; Kate White; Jane L Phillips; Jane M Young; Sallie A Pearson; Sarah York; Tim Shaw Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Julia Keizer; Britt E Bente; Nashwan Al Naiemi; Lisette Jewc Van Gemert-Pijnen; Nienke Beerlage-De Jong Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 7.076