Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21167034›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2010

Feedback GAP: study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of goal setting and action plans to increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions in primary care.

Noah M Ivers, Karen Tu, Jill Francis, Jan Barnsley, Baiju Shah, Ross Upshur, Alex Kiss, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Merrick Zwarenstein

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00996645 (Cluster Randomized Trial of a Goal-Setting Intervention With Performance Feedback Reports Regarding Diabetes and Coronary Artery Disease for Family Physicians in Ontario), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00996645 nacompletednot on this map

Cluster Randomized Trial of a Goal-Setting Intervention With Performance Feedback Reports Regarding Diabetes and Coronary Artery Disease for Family Physicians in Ontario

TypeinterventionalSponsorSunnybrook Health Sciences CentreRan2010 to 2012Enrolled55ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Coronary Artery DiseaseArmsWorksheet to facilitate goal-setting and action plans
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Noah M IversWomen's College Hospital Family Health Team, 76 Grenville Street, Toronto ON, M5 S 1B2, Canada. noah.ivers@utoronto.ca.
Karen Tu
Jill Francis
Jan Barnsley
Baiju Shah
Ross Upshur
Alex Kiss
Jeremy M Grimshaw
Merrick Zwarenstein
Health Sciences Centre · CAInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Toronto · CAWomen's College Hospital · CA

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAudit and feedback to physicians is commonly used alone or as part of multifaceted interventions. While it can play an important role in quality improvement, the optimal design of audit and feedback is unknown. This study explores how feedback can be improved to increase acceptability and usability in primary care. The trial seeks to determine whether a theory-informed worksheet appended to feedback reports can help family physicians improve quality of care for their patients with diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease.

methodsTwo-arm cluster trial was conducted with participating primary care practices allocated using minimization to simple feedback or enhanced feedback group. The simple feedback group receives performance feedback reports every six months for two years regarding the proportion of their patients with diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease who are meeting quality targets. The enhanced feedback group receives these same reports as well as a theory-informed worksheet designed to facilitate goal setting and action plan development in response to the feedback reports. Participants are family physicians from across Ontario who use electronic medical records; data for rostered patients are used to produce the feedback reports and for analysis. OUTCOMES: The primary disease outcomes are the blood pressure (BP), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) levels. The primary process measure is a composite score indicating the number of recommended activities (e.g., tests and prescriptions) conducted by the family physicians for their patients with diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease within the appropriate timeframe. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of patients whose results meet targets for glucose, LDL, and BP as well as the percent of patients receiving relevant prescriptions. A qualitative process evaluation using semi-structured interviews will explore perceived barriers to behaviour change in response to feedback reports and preferences with regard to feedback design. ANALYSIS: Intention-to-treat approach will be used to analyze the trial. Analysis will be performed on patient-level variables using generalized estimating equation models to adjust for covariates and account for the clustered nature of the data. The trial is powered to show small, but clinically important differences of 7 mmHG in systolic BP and 0.32 mmol/L in LDL.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00996645.

Identifiers

PMID21167034
PMCPMC3161381
OpenAlexW2140798854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.