Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30181108›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2018

Designing Emails Aimed at Increasing Family Physicians' Use of a Web-Based Audit and Feedback Tool to Improve Cancer Screening Rates: Cocreation Process.

Caroline A Bravo, Diego Llovet, Holly O Witteman, Laura Desveaux, Justin Presseau, Marianne Saragosa, Gratianne Vaisson, Shama Umar, Jill Tinmouth, Noah M Ivers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2018. 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
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Precision feedback: A conceptual model.Learning health systems · 2024
    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

10 authors.

Caroline A BravoPrevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3941-705X
Diego LlovetPrevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6911-5143
Holly O WittemanDepartment of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4192-0682
Laura DesveauxInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3429-1865
Justin PresseauClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2132-0703
Marianne SaragosaInstitute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9261-5971
Gratianne VaissonOffice of Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2795-6083
Shama UmarPrevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3648-2430
Jill TinmouthPrevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0264-2176
Noah M IversWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2500-2435

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding clinical performance data to health professionals, a process known as audit and feedback, can play an important role in health system improvement. However, audit and feedback tools can only be effective if the targeted health professionals access and actively review their data. Email is used by Cancer Care Ontario, a provincial cancer agency, to promote access to a Web-based audit and feedback tool called the Screening Activity Report (SAR); however, current emails that lack behavior change content have been ineffective at encouraging log-in to the SAR.

objectiveThe objective of our study was to describe the process and experience of developing email content that incorporates user input and behavior change techniques (BCTs) to promote the use of the SAR among Ontario primary care providers.

methodsOur interdisciplinary research team first identified BCTs shown to be effective in other settings that could be adapted to promote use of the SAR. We then developed draft BCT-informed email content. Next, we conducted cocreation workshops with physicians who had logged in to the SAR more than once over the past year. Participants provided reactions to researcher-developed BCT-informed content and helped to develop an email that they believed would prompt their colleagues to use the SAR. Content from cocreation workshops was brought to focus groups with physicians who had not used the SAR in the past year. We analyzed notes from the cocreation workshops and focus groups to inform decisions about content. Finally, 8 emails were created to test BCT-informed content in a 2×2×2 factorial randomized experiment.

resultsWe identified 3 key tensions during the development of the email that required us to balance user input with scientific evidence, organizational policies, and our scientific objectives, which are as follows: conflict between user preference and scientific evidence, privacy constraints around personalizing unencrypted emails with performance data, and using cocreation methods in a study with the objective of developing an email that featured BCT-informed content.

conclusionsTeams tasked with developing content to promote health professional engagement with audit and feedback or other quality improvement tools might consider cocreation processes for developing communications that are informed by both users and BCTs. Teams should be cautious about making decisions solely based on user reactions because what users seem to prefer is not always the same as what works. Furthermore, implementing user recommendations may not always be feasible. Teams may face challenges when using cocreation methods to develop a product with the simultaneous goal of having clearly defined variables to test in later studies. The expected role of users, evidence, and the implementation context all warrant consideration to determine whether and how cocreation methods could help to achieve design and scientific objectives.

Indexed as

audit and feedbackbehavior changeclinical auditco-creationemailphysician engagementuser design

Identifiers

PMID30181108
PMCPMC6231866

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.