Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31027495›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2019

Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT): a new theory for designing, implementing, and evaluating feedback in health care based on a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research.

Benjamin Brown, Wouter T Gude, Thomas Blakeman, Sabine N van der Veer, Noah Ivers, Jill J Francis, Fabiana Lorencatto, Justin Presseau, Niels Peek, Gavin Daker-White

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05920499 (The Effect of AUDIT and Feedback on Pneumococcal Vaccination Coverage in Adults At Risk in General Practice), which is not on this map. Cited by 176 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
176citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–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.

NCT05920499 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of AUDIT and Feedback on Pneumococcal Vaccination Coverage in Adults At Risk in General Practice: a Cluster Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorBert VaesRan2025 to 2026Enrolled36ConditionsPneumococcal InfectionsArmsAUDIT and Feedback
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

176 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Audit and Feedback Interventions for Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Indicators to evaluate quality of care in head and neck cancer in Spain.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

116 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Benjamin BrownCentre for Health Informatics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. benjamin.brown@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9975-4782
Wouter T GudeDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Thomas BlakemanCentre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Sabine N van der VeerCentre for Health Informatics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Noah IversDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Jill J FrancisCentre for Health Services Research, City University of London, London, UK.
Fabiana LorencattoCentre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.
Justin PresseauCentre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Niels PeekCentre for Health Informatics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Gavin Daker-WhiteCentre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Wellcome Trust 104438/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding health professionals with quantitative summaries of their clinical performance when treating specific groups of patients ("feedback") is a widely used quality improvement strategy, yet systematic reviews show it has varying success. Theory could help explain what factors influence feedback success, and guide approaches to enhance effectiveness. However, existing theories lack comprehensiveness and specificity to health care. To address this problem, we conducted the first systematic review and synthesis of qualitative evaluations of feedback interventions, using findings to develop a comprehensive new health care-specific feedback theory.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception until 2016 inclusive. Data were synthesised by coding individual papers, building on pre-existing theories to formulate hypotheses, iteratively testing and improving hypotheses, assessing confidence in hypotheses using the GRADE-CERQual method, and summarising high-confidence hypotheses into a set of propositions.

resultsWe synthesised 65 papers evaluating 73 feedback interventions from countries spanning five continents. From our synthesis we developed Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT), which builds on 30 pre-existing theories and has 42 high-confidence hypotheses. CP-FIT states that effective feedback works in a cycle of sequential processes; it becomes less effective if any individual process fails, thus halting progress round the cycle. Feedback's success is influenced by several factors operating via a set of common explanatory mechanisms: the feedback method used, health professional receiving feedback, and context in which feedback takes place. CP-FIT summarises these effects in three propositions: (1) health care professionals and organisations have a finite capacity to engage with feedback, (2) these parties have strong beliefs regarding how patient care should be provided that influence their interactions with feedback, and (3) feedback that directly supports clinical behaviours is most effective.

conclusionsThis is the first qualitative meta-synthesis of feedback interventions, and the first comprehensive theory of feedback designed specifically for health care. Our findings contribute new knowledge about how feedback works and factors that influence its effectiveness. Internationally, practitioners, researchers, and policy-makers can use CP-FIT to design, implement, and evaluate feedback. Doing so could improve care for large numbers of patients, reduce opportunity costs, and improve returns on financial investments.

trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD42015017541.

Indexed as

Formative FeedbackModels, TheoreticalOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareQualitative ResearchClinical AuditEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Services ResearchHumansClinical auditFeedbackLearning health systemPerformance measurementQualitative evidence synthesisQualitative researchQuality improvementTheory

Identifiers

PMID31027495
PMCPMC6486695

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.