Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28747187›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2017

General practitioners' views and preferences about quality improvement feedback in preventive care: a cross-sectional study in Switzerland and France.

Paul Sebo, Hubert Maisonneuve, Jean-Pascal Fournier, Nicolas Senn, Dagmar M Haller

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul SeboPrimary Care Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. paulsebo@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7616-0017
Hubert MaisonneuvePrimary Care Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jean-Pascal FournierDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of Nantes, Nantes, France.
Nicolas SennDepartment of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dagmar M HallerPrimary Care Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
University of Geneva · CHNantes Université · FRUniversity of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFeedback is widely used as a strategy to improve the quality of care in primary care settings. As part of a study conducted to explore the quality of preventive care, we investigated general practitioners' (GPs) views on the usefulness of feedback and their preferences regarding how feedback is provided.

methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in 2015 among randomly selected community-based GPs in two regions of Switzerland and France. GPs were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire about how often they provided 12 measures of preventive care: blood pressure, weight and height measurements, screening for dyslipidemia, at-risk drinking (and advice to reduce for at-risk drinkers), smoking (and advice to stop for smokers), colon and prostate cancer, and influenza immunization for patients >65 years and at-risk patients. They were also asked to estimate the usefulness of a feedback regarding their preventive care practice, reason(s) for which a feedback could be useful, and finally, to state which type of feedback they would like to receive. Chi-square tests were used to compare frequencies. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with GPs considering feedback as useful.

resultsFive hundred eighteen of 1100 GPs (47.1%) returned the questionnaire. They were predominantly men (62.5%) and most (40.1%) were aged between 55 and 64 years old. Overall, 44.3% stated that a feedback would be useful. Younger GPs and those carrying out more measures of preventive care were more likely to consider feedback useful. The two main reasons for being interested in feedback were to receive knowledge about the study results and to modify or improve practice. The two preferred feedback interventions were a brief report and a report with specific information regarding prevention best practice, whereas less than 1% would like to discuss the results face-to-face with the study investigators.

conclusionsThese findings suggest that GPs have preferences regarding the types of feedback they would like to receive. Because the implementation of guidelines is highly related to the acceptance of feedback, we strongly encourage decision makers to take GPs' preferences into account when developing strategies to implement guidelines, in order to improve the quality of primary care.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelFeedbackAlcohol DrinkingBlood PressureBody Weights and MeasuresCross-Sectional StudiesDyslipidemiasFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleMiddle AgedPreventive Health ServicesQuality ImprovementSmoking CessationSwitzerlandFeedbackPreventive carePrimary careQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID28747187
PMCPMC5530524
OpenAlexW2737044374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.