Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30064413›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2018

The impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors: a systematic review.

Rebecca Baines, Sam Regan de Bere, Sebastian Stevens, Jamie Read, Martin Marshall, Mirza Lalani, Marie Bryce, Julian Archer

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Overview of Quantitative Research.Family medicine · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Empowering GI fellows to lead the change: A national survey on strengths and opportunities to enhance gastroenterology training in Saudi Arabia.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

8 authors.

Rebecca BainesCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research & Assessment (CAMERA), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK.
Sam Regan de BereCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research & Assessment (CAMERA), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK.
Sebastian StevensCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research & Assessment (CAMERA), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK.
Jamie ReadCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research & Assessment (CAMERA), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK.
Martin MarshallImprovement Science London, University College London, London, UK.
Mirza LalaniResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Marie BryceCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research & Assessment (CAMERA), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK.
Julian ArcherCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research & Assessment (CAMERA), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK. julian.archer@plymouth.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9983-9655

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2011-04-004General Medical Council 152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient feedback is considered integral to quality improvement and professional development. However, while popular across the educational continuum, evidence to support its efficacy in facilitating positive behaviour change in a postgraduate setting remains unclear. This review therefore aims to explore the evidence that supports, or refutes, the impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors.

methodsElectronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were systematically searched for studies assessing the impact of patient feedback on medical performance published in the English language between 2006-2016. Impact was defined as a measured change in behaviour using Barr's (2000) adaptation of Kirkpatrick's four level evaluation model. Papers were quality appraised, thematically analysed and synthesised using a narrative approach.

resultsFrom 1,269 initial studies, 20 articles were included (qualitative (n=8); observational (n=6); systematic review (n=3); mixed methodology (n=1); randomised control trial (n=1); and longitudinal (n=1) design). One article identified change at an organisational level (Kirkpatrick level 4); six reported a measured change in behaviour (Kirkpatrick level 3b); 12 identified self-reported change or intention to change (Kirkpatrick level 3a), and one identified knowledge or skill acquisition (Kirkpatrick level 2). No study identified a change at the highest level, an improvement in the health and wellbeing of patients. The main factors found to influence the impact of patient feedback were: specificity; perceived credibility; congruence with physician self-perceptions and performance expectations; presence of facilitation and reflection; and inclusion of narrative comments. The quality of feedback facilitation and local professional cultures also appeared integral to positive behaviour change.

conclusionPatient feedback can have an impact on medical performance. However, actionable change is influenced by several contextual factors and cannot simply be guaranteed. Patient feedback is likely to be more influential if it is specific, collected through credible methods and contains narrative information. Data obtained should be fed back in a way that facilitates reflective discussion and encourages the formulation of actionable behaviour change. A supportive cultural understanding of patient feedback and its intended purpose is also essential for its effective use.

Indexed as

Formative FeedbackPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality ImprovementWork PerformanceFemaleHumansMaleMedical StaffBehaviour changeDoctorsImpactMedical educationPatient feedbackSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30064413
PMCPMC6069829

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.