Dataset Information

A systematic review of electronic audit and feedback: intervention effectiveness and use of behaviour change theory.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Audit and feedback is a common intervention for supporting clinical behaviour change. Increasingly, health data are available in electronic format. Yet, little is known regarding if and how electronic audit and feedback (e-A&F) improves quality of care in practice. OBJECTIVE:The study aimed to assess the effectiveness of e-A&F interventions in a primary care and hospital context and to identify theoretical mechanisms of behaviour change underlying these interventions. METHODS:In August 2016, we searched five electronic databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for published randomised controlled trials. We included studies that evaluated e-A&F interventions, defined as a summary of clinical performance delivered through an interactive computer interface to healthcare providers. Data on feedback characteristics, underlying theoretical domains, effect size and risk of bias were extracted by two independent review authors, who determined the domains within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We performed a meta-analysis of e-A&F effectiveness, and a narrative analysis of the nature and patterns of TDF domains and potential links with the intervention effect. RESULTS:We included seven studies comprising of 81,700 patients being cared for by 329 healthcare professionals/primary care facilities. Given the extremely high heterogeneity of the e-A&F interventions and five studies having a medium or high risk of bias, the average effect was deemed unreliable. Only two studies explicitly used theory to guide intervention design. The most frequent theoretical domains targeted by the e-A&F interventions included 'knowledge', 'social influences', 'goals' and 'behaviour regulation', with each intervention targeting a combination of at least three. None of the interventions addressed the domains 'social/professional role and identity' or 'emotion'. Analyses identified the number of different domains coded in control arm to have the biggest role in heterogeneity in e-A&F effect size. CONCLUSIONS:Given the high heterogeneity of identified studies, the effects of e-A&F were found to be highly variable. Additionally, e-A&F interventions tend to implicitly target only a fraction of known theoretical domains, even after omitting domains presumed not to be linked to e-A&F. Also, little evaluation of comparative effectiveness across trial arms was conducted. Future research should seek to further unpack the theoretical domains essential for effective e-A&F in order to better support strategic individual and team goals.

SUBMITTER: Tuti T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5427645 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of electronic audit and feedback: intervention effectiveness and use of behaviour change theory.

Tuti Timothy T Nzinga Jacinta J Njoroge Martin M Brown Benjamin B Peek Niels N English Mike M Paton Chris C van der Veer Sabine N SN

Implementation science : IS 20170512 1

<h4>Background</h4>Audit and feedback is a common intervention for supporting clinical behaviour change. Increasingly, health data are available in electronic format. Yet, little is known regarding if and how electronic audit and feedback (e-A&F) improves quality of care in practice.<h4>Objective</h4>The study aimed to assess the effectiveness of e-A&F interventions in a primary care and hospital context and to identify theoretical mechanisms of behaviour change underlying these interventions.<h ...[more]

PMID: 28494799

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) is among the most widely used implementation strategies, providing healthcare professionals with summaries of their practice performance to prompt behaviour change and optimize care. Wide variability in effectiveness of A&F has spurred efforts to explore why some A&F interventions are more effective than others. Unpacking the variability of the content of A&F interventions in terms of their component behaviours change techniques (BCTs) may help advance our understanding of how A&F works best. This study aimed to systematically specify BCTs in A&F interventions targeting healthcare professional practice change.MethodsWe conducted a directed content analysis of intervention descriptions in 287 randomized trials included in an ongoing Cochrane systematic review update of A&F interventions (searched up to June 2020). Three trained researchers identified and categorized BCTs in all trial arms (treatment & control/comparator) using the 93-item BCT Taxonomy version 1. The original BCT definitions and examples in the taxonomy were adapted to include A&F-specific decision rules and examples. Two additional BCTs ('Education (unspecified)' and 'Feedback (unspecified)') were added, such that 95 BCTs were considered for coding.ResultsIn total, 47/95 BCTs (49%) were identified across 360 treatment arms at least once (median = 5.0, IQR = 2.3, range = 129 per arm). The most common BCTs were 'Feedback on behaviour' (present 89% of the time; e.g. feedback on drug prescribing), 'Instruction on how to perform the behaviour' (71%; e.g. issuing a clinical guideline), 'Social comparison' (52%; e.g. feedback on performance of peers), 'Credible source' (41%; e.g. endorsements from respected professional body), and 'Education (unspecified)' (31%; e.g. giving a lecture to staff). A total of 130/287 (45%) control/comparator arms contained at least one BCT (median = 2.0, IQR = 3.0, range = 0-15 per arm), of which the most common were identical to those identified in treatment arms.ConclusionsA&F interventions to improve healthcare professional practice include a moderate range of BCTs, focusing predominantly on providing behavioural feedback, sharing guidelines, peer comparison data, education, and leveraging credible sources. We encourage the use of our A&F-specific list of BCTs to improve knowledge of what is being delivered in A&F interventions. Our study provides a basis for exploring which BCTs are associated with intervention effectiveness.Trial registrationsN/A.

Project description:Reviews around interventions to improve shared decision making (SDM) for child and youth mental health have produced inconclusive findings on what approaches increase participation. Importantly, the previous reviews did not explore the use of theory, as well as mechanisms of change (intervention functions) and active units of change (behaviour change techniques). The aim of this review was to explore these factors and ascertain how, if at all, these contribute to SDM. Five databases were searched up until April 2020. Studies met inclusion criteria if they were: (a) an intervention to facilitate SDM; (b) aimed at children, adolescence, or young people aged up to 25, with a mental health difficulty, or their parents/guardians; and (c) included a control group. Data were extracted on patient characteristics, study design, intervention, theoretical background, intervention functions, behaviour change techniques, and SDM. Quality assessment of the studies was undertaken using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool. Eight different interventions met inclusion criteria. The role of theory to increase SDM remains unclear. Specific intervention functions, such as 'education' on SDM and treatment options and 'environmental restructuring' using decision aids, are being used in SDM interventions, as well as 'training' for clinicians. Similarly, behaviour change techniques linked to these, such as 'adding objects to the environment', 'discussing pros/cons', and clinicians engaging in 'behavioural practice/rehearsal'. However, as most studies scored low on the quality assessment criteria, as well as a small number of studies included and a low number of behaviour change techniques utilised, links between behaviour change techniques, intervention functions and increased participation remain tentative. Intervention developers and clinicians may wish to consider specific intervention functions and behaviour change techniques to facilitate SDM.

Project description:BackgroundDigital harm-reduction interventions typically focus on people with severe drug-use problems, yet these interventions have moderate effectiveness on drug-users with lower levels of risk of harm. The difference in effectiveness may be explained by differences in behavioural patterns between the two groupings. Harnessing behavioural theories to understand what is at the core of drug-use behaviours and mapping the content of new interventions, may improve upon the effectiveness of interventions for lower-risk drug-users. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically apply the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) approach to understand the components, influencing capabilities, opportunities, and motivations (COM-B) of higher education students to change their drug-use behaviors. It is also the first study which identifies specific patterns of behaviours that are more responsive to harm reduction practices through the use of the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF).MethodsWe employed an explanatory sequential mix-method design. We first conducted an on-line survey and a Delphi exercise to understand the factors influencing COM-B components of higher education students to change their drug-use. Subsequently, we mapped all evidence onto the COM-B components and the TDF domains to identify clusters of behaviours to target for change, using a pattern-based discourse analysis. Finally, a series of multidisciplinary group meetings identified the intervention functions-the means by which the intervention change targeted behaviours and the Behavioural Change Techniques (BCTs) involved using the behaviour change technique taxonomy (v.1).ResultsTwenty-nine BCTs relevant to harm-reduction practices were identified and mapped across five intervention functions (education, modelling, persuasion, incentivization, and training) and five policy categories (communication/marketing, guidelines, regulation, service provision, and environmental/social planning). These BCTs were distributed across eight identified saturated clusters of behaviours MyUSE intervention attempts to change.ConclusionsThe BCTs, identified, will inform the development of a digitally delivered behaviour change intervention that focuses on increasing mindful decision-making with respect to drug-use and promotes alternatives to drug-use activities. The findings can also inform implementation scientists in applying context-specific harm-reduction practices in higher education. We present examples of how the eight identified clusters of target behaviours are mapped across the COM-B components and the TDF, along with suggestions of implementation practices for harm reduction at student population level.

Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) is a widely used implementation strategy to influence health professionals' behavior that is often tested in implementation trials. This study examines how A&F trials describe sustainability, spread, and scale.MethodsThis is a theory-informed, descriptive, secondary analysis of an update of the Cochrane systematic review of A&F trials, including all trials published since 2011. Keyword searches related to sustainability, spread, and scale were conducted. Trials with at least one keyword, and those identified from a forward citation search, were extracted to examine how they described sustainability, spread, and scale. Results were qualitatively analyzed using the Integrated Sustainability Framework (ISF) and the Framework for Going to Full Scale (FGFS).ResultsFrom the larger review, n = 161 studies met eligibility criteria. Seventy-eight percent (n = 126) of trials included at least one keyword on sustainability, and 49% (n = 62) of those studies (39% overall) frequently mentioned sustainability based on inclusion of relevant text in multiple sections of the paper. For spread/scale, 62% (n = 100) of trials included at least one relevant keyword and 51% (n = 51) of those studies (31% overall) frequently mentioned spread/scale. A total of n = 38 studies from the forward citation search were included in the qualitative analysis. Although many studies mentioned the need to consider sustainability, there was limited detail on how this was planned, implemented, or assessed. The most frequent sustainability period duration was 12 months. Qualitative results mapped to the ISF, but not all determinants were represented. Strong alignment was found with the FGFS for phases of scale-up and support systems (infrastructure), but not for adoption mechanisms. New spread/scale themes included (1) aligning affordability and scalability; (2) balancing fidelity and scalability; and (3) balancing effect size and scalability.ConclusionA&F trials should plan for sustainability, spread, and scale so that if the trial is effective, the benefits can continue. A deeper empirical understanding of the factors impacting A&F sustainability is needed. Scalability planning should go beyond cost and infrastructure to consider other adoption mechanisms, such as leadership, policy, and communication, that may support further scalability.Trial registrationRegistered with Prospero in May 2022. CRD42022332606.

Project description:In nursing homes, 25%-75% of antibiotic days of treatment are inappropriate or unnecessary and are often continued for longer durations than necessary. In Ontario, physicians can receive a provincial audit and feedback report that provides individualised, confidential, data about their antibiotic prescribing. Objectives of this study were to explore antibiotic prescribing of nursing home physicians and the influence of the report. All physicians who received a personalised MyPractice: Long-Term Care report from Ontario Health (Quality) (OH(Q)) in January 2019 (n=361) were eligible to participate in semistructured telephone interviews that were recorded then transcribed verbatim. Recruitment emails were sent from OH(Q) until saturation of ideas. Analysis was conducted by two team members inductively, then deductively using the theoretical domains framework, a comprehensive, theory-informed framework to classify determinants of specific behaviours. Interviews were conducted with n=18 physicians; 78% (n=14) were men, practising for an average of 27 years, with 18 years of experience working in nursing homes. Physicians worked in a median of 2 facilities (range 1-6), with 72% (n=13) in an urban setting. 56% (n=10) were medical directors for at least one home. Professional role and identity impacted all aspects of antibiotic prescribing. Key roles included being an 'Appropriate prescriber', an 'Educator' and a 'Change driver'. For antibiotic initiation, these roles interacted with Knowledge, Skills, Beliefs about consequence, Beliefs about capabilities, and Social influence to determine the resulting prescribing behaviour. When considering the impact of interacting with the report, participants' perceived roles interacted with Reinforcement, Social influence, and Intention. Environmental context and resources was an overarching domain. This theory-informed approach is being used to inform upcoming versions of existing audit and feedback initiatives. Appealing to the role that prescribers see themselves offers a unique opportunity to encourage desired changes, such as providing tools for physicians to be Educators and facilitating, particularly medical directors, to be Change drivers.

Project description:IntroductionPharmacists, as experts in medicines, are increasingly employed in general practices and undertake a range of responsibilities. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions are effective in achieving behaviour change, including prescribing. The extent of pharmacist involvement in A&F interventions to influence prescribing is unknown. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of A&F interventions involving pharmacists on prescribing in general practice compared with no A&F/usual care and to describe features of A&F interventions and pharmacist characteristics.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, (Social) Science Citation Indexes, ISI Web of Science) were searched (2012, 2019, 2020). Cochrane systematic review methods were applied to trial identification, selection, and risk of bias. Results were summarized descriptively and heterogeneity was assessed. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted where studies were sufficiently homogenous in design and outcome.ResultsEleven cluster-randomized studies from 9 countries were included. Risk of bias across most domains was low. Interventions focussed on older patients, specific clinical area(s), or specific medications. Meta-analysis of 6 studies showed improved prescribing outcomes (pooled risk ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.94). Interventions including both verbal and written feedback or computerized decision support for prescribers were more effective. Pharmacists who received study-specific training, provided ongoing support to prescribers or reviewed prescribing for individual patients, contributed to more effective interventions.ConclusionsA&F interventions involving pharmacists can lead to small improvements in evidence-based prescribing in general practice settings. Future implementation of A&F within general practice should compare different ways of involving pharmacists to determine how to optimize effectiveness.PRISMA-compliant abstract included in Supplementary Material 1.

Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) is a common quality improvement strategy with highly variable effects on patient care. It is unclear how A&F effectiveness can be maximised. Since the core mechanism of action of A&F depends on drawing attention to a discrepancy between actual and desired performance, we aimed to understand current and best practices in the choice of performance comparator.MethodsWe described current choices for performance comparators by conducting a secondary review of randomised trials of A&F interventions and identifying the associated mechanisms that might have implications for effective A&F by reviewing theories and empirical studies from a recent qualitative evidence synthesis.ResultsWe found across 146 trials that feedback recipients' performance was most frequently compared against the performance of others (benchmarks; 60.3%). Other comparators included recipients' own performance over time (trends; 9.6%) and target standards (explicit targets; 11.0%), and 13% of trials used a combination of these options. In studies featuring benchmarks, 42% compared against mean performance. Eight (5.5%) trials provided a rationale for using a specific comparator. We distilled mechanisms of each comparator from 12 behavioural theories, 5 randomised trials, and 42 qualitative A&F studies.ConclusionClinical performance comparators in published literature were poorly informed by theory and did not explicitly account for mechanisms reported in qualitative studies. Based on our review, we argue that there is considerable opportunity to improve the design of performance comparators by (1) providing tailored comparisons rather than benchmarking everyone against the mean, (2) limiting the amount of comparators being displayed while providing more comparative information upon request to balance the feedback's credibility and actionability, (3) providing performance trends but not trends alone, and (4) encouraging feedback recipients to set personal, explicit targets guided by relevant information.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of electronic audit and feedback: intervention effectiveness and use of behaviour change theory.

Publications

A systematic review of electronic audit and feedback: intervention effectiveness and use of behaviour change theory.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets