Trial reportHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017
Patients' use and views of real-time feedback technology in general practice.
Trial report in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health system responsiveness: a systematic evidence mapping review of the global literature.International journal for equity in health · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluating Digital Maturity and Patient Acceptability of Real-Time Patient Experience Feedback Systems: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Health information systems integrating patient-reported outcomes and experience: a scoping review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Review
- Exploring effective patient feedback methods for eHealth in general practice.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Use of Daily Web-Based, Real-Time Feedback to Improve Patient and Family Experience.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- Efficacy and Safety outcomes of a novel model to assess new medical retina referrals in a high-volume medical retina virtual clinic.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Effect of Real-Time Feedback Devices on Primary Care Patient Experience Scores: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.Journal of patient experience · 2021Article
- Using patient-reported measures to drive change in healthcare: the experience of the digital, continuous and systematic PREMs observatory in Italy.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Investigating the feasibility of a patient feedback tool to improve safety in Australian primary care: a study protocol.BMJ open · 2019Article
- The Friends and Family Test in general practice in England: a qualitative study of the views of staff and patients.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Article
- Barriers and facilitators of a near real-time feedback approach for measuring patient experiences of hospital care.Health policy and technology · 2017Article
- Capturing patient experience: a qualitative study of implementing real-time feedback in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is growing interest in real-time feedback (RTF), which involves collecting and summarizing information about patient experience at the point of care with the aim of informing service improvement.
objectiveTo investigate the feasibility and acceptability of RTF in UK general practice.
designExploratory randomized trial. SETTING/
participantsTen general practices in south-west England and Cambridgeshire. All patients attending surgeries were eligible to provide RTF.
interventionTouch screens were installed in waiting areas for 12 weeks with practice staff responsible for encouraging patients to provide RTF. All practices received fortnightly feedback summaries. Four teams attended a facilitated reflection session. OUTCOMES: RTF 'response rates' among consulting patients were estimated, and the representativeness of touch screen users were assessed. The frequency of staff-patient interactions about RTF (direct observation) and patient views of RTF (exit survey) were summarized. Associated costs were collated.
resultsAbout 2.5% consulting patients provided RTF (range 0.7-8.0% across practices), representing a mean of 194 responses per practice. Patients aged above 65 were under-represented among touch screen users. Receptionists rarely encouraged RTF but, when this did occur, 60% patients participated. Patients were largely positive about RTF but identified some barriers. Costs per practice for the twelve-week period ranged from £1125 (unfacilitated team-level feedback) to £1887 (facilitated team ± practitioner-level feedback). The main cost was the provision of touch screens.
conclusionsResponse rates for RTF were lower than those of other survey modes, although the numbers of patients providing feedback to each practice were comparable to those achieved in the English national GP patient survey. More patients might engage with RTF if the opportunity were consistently highlighted to them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.