Literature DB >> 8347386

Does feedback improve the quality of cervical smears? A randomized controlled trial.

F Buntinx1, J A Knottnerus, H F Crebolder, T Seegers, G G Essed, H Schouten.   

Abstract

In a randomized controlled trial three methods of feedback of increasing intensity, directed at 183 doctors taking cervical smears, were compared with respect to their effects on the sampling quality of smears. Overall, feedback was found to have no influence on quality criteria in the crude data analysis. However, a significantly larger decrease in the percentage of smears lacking endocervical cells was found in the groups receiving monthly overviews of their results with peer comparison, when compared with the groups not receiving this type of feedback (odds ratio 0.75). Moreover, feedback appeared to have a clear effect on the presence of endocervical cells among doctors submitting a substantial number of smears in the intervention period, as opposed to those who submitted fewer smears. A positive correlation was also observed between the increase in the group mean of the proportions of smears containing pathological cells and the intensity of the feedback. However, this increase did not reach statistical significance. This study suggests that monthly feedback with peer comparison may have a positive relationship with some aspects of quality improvement in cervical screening.

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8347386      PMCID: PMC1372391     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  15 in total

1.  Reactions of doctors to various forms of feedback designed to improve the sampling quality of cervical smears.

Authors:  F Buntinx; J A Knottnerus; H F Crebolder; G G Essed
Journal:  Qual Assur Health Care       Date:  1992-06

2.  Relation between quality of cervical smears and probability of abnormal results.

Authors:  F Buntinx; J A Knottnerus; H F Crebolder; G G Essed; H Schouten
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-05-09

3.  The qualification period.

Authors:  P Knipschild; P Leffers; A R Feinstein
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Cervical smear sampling quality.

Authors:  F Buntinx; H F Crebolder; J A Knottnerus; G G Essed
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1991-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical status.

Authors:  H Mitchell; G Medley
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1991-02-02       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Comparison of Cytobrush sampling, spatula sampling and combined Cytobrush-spatula sampling of the uterine cervix.

Authors:  F Buntinx; M E Boon; S Beck; J A Knottnerus; G G Essed
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  1991 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.319

7.  Geographical variations in the sampling quality of cervical smears.

Authors:  F Buntinx; G G Essed; H F Crebolder; J A Knottnerus
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  1991-12-13       Impact factor: 2.435

8.  Cost containment and changing physicians' practice behavior. Can the fox learn to guard the chicken coop?

Authors:  J M Eisenberg; S V Williams
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1981-11-13       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Modifying test-ordering behavior in the outpatient medical clinic. A controlled trial of two educational interventions.

Authors:  K I Marton; V Tul; H C Sox
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1985-05

10.  Rates of condyloma and dysplasia in Papanicolaou smears with and without endocervical cells.

Authors:  M Mauney; D Eide; J Sotham
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.582

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  How can we develop a cost-effective quality cervical screening programme?

Authors:  Sue Wilson; Helen Lester
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback.

Authors:  Gro Jamtvedt; Jane M Young; Doris T Kristoffersen; Mary Ann O'Brien; Andrew D Oxman
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2006-12

3.  Responding to the evidence: Evidence-based implementation of evidence-based medicine.

Authors:  C W Onion
Journal:  Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  2001-07

Review 4.  Implementing guidelines and innovations in general practice: which interventions are effective?

Authors:  M Wensing; T van der Weijden; R Grol
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Adoption of electronic medical record-based decision support for otitis media in children.

Authors:  Alexander G Fiks; Peixin Zhang; A Russell Localio; Saira Khan; Robert W Grundmeier; Dean J Karavite; Charles Bailey; Evaline A Alessandrini; Christopher B Forrest
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-10-06       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Cervical smears.

Authors:  P Curtis; M Mintzer; S Hendrix; J Resnick; D Morrell
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Individualized performance feedback to increase prenatal domestic violence screening.

Authors:  Mary M Duncan; Patricia A McIntosh; Catherine D Stayton; Charles B Hall
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2006-05-19

8.  No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice.

Authors:  A D Oxman; M A Thomson; D A Davis; R B Haynes
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1995-11-15       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Comparison of the Cervex-Brush® Combi and the Cytobrush+Ayres Spatula Combination for Cervical Sampling in Liquid-Based Cytology.

Authors:  Marcelo Simonsen; José Humberto Tavares Guerreiro Fregnani; Júlio Cesar Possati Resende; Márcio Antoniazzi; Adhemar Longatto-Filho; Cristovam Scapulatempo-Neto
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-14       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Interventions to Educate Family Physicians to Change Test Ordering: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Roger Edmund Thomas; Marcus Vaska; Christopher Naugler; Tanvir Turin Chowdhury
Journal:  Acad Pathol       Date:  2016-03-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.