ArticleBMJ open2019
What motivates general practitioners to change practice behaviour? A qualitative study of audit and feedback group sessions in Dutch general practice.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences of general practice teams and their patients with clinical research-a mixed-methods process evaluation of the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet).BMC primary care · 2025Trial
- Identifying barriers and facilitators to audit & feedback in general practice in Italy: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Utilisation of a cocreation methodology to develop claims-based indicators for feedback on implementation of comparative effectiveness research results into practice.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Reduced antimicrobial use in weaned pigs through an intervention program supporting veterinarians' adherence to the clinical practice Streptococcus suis guideline.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Do medical specialists accept claims-based Audit and Feedback for quality improvement? A focus group study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Expectations of general practitioners on a practice based research network in Germany- a qualitative study within the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet).BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Article
- Understanding the effect of an educational intervention to optimize HIV testing strategies in primary care in Amsterdam - results of a mixed-methods study.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Performing up to Nordic principles? Geographic and socioeconomic equity in ambulatory care sensitive conditions among older adults in capital areas of Denmark, Finland and Sweden in 2000-2015.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Article
- Physician-Targeted Interventions in Antibiotic Prescribing for Urinary Tract Infections in General Practice: A Systematic Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- 'Give me something meaningful': GPs perspectives on how to improve an audit and feedback report provided by health insurers - an exploratory qualitative study.BMJ open quality · 2022Article
- Article
- Rationale, design and initial results of an educational intervention to improve provider-initiated HIV testing in primary care.Family practice · 2021Article
- Training Family Doctors and Primary Care Nurses in Evidence-based Prevention, Screening and Management of Cardiovascular Risks in Western Ukraine: A Longitudinal Study.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2020Article
- Small and Large Animal Veterinarian Perceptions of Antimicrobial Use Metrics for Hospital-Based Stewardship in the United States.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAdopting an attributional perspective, the current article investigates how audit and feedback group sessions contribute to general practitioners' (GPs) motivation to change their practice behaviour to improve care. We focus on the contributions of the audit and feedback itself (content) and the group discussion (process).
methodsFour focus groups, comprising a total of 39 participating Dutch GPs, discussed and compared audit and feedback of their practices. The focus groups were analysed thematically.
resultsAudit and feedback contributed to GPs' motivation to change in two ways: by raising awareness about aspects of their current care practice and by providing indications of the possible impact of change. For these contributions to play out, the audit and feedback should be reliable and valid, specific, recent and recurrent and concern GPs' own practices or practices within their own influence sphere. Care behaviour attributed to external, uncontrollable or unstable causes would not induce change. The added value of the group is twofold as well: group discussion contributed to GPs' motivation to change by providing a frame of reference and by affording insights that participants would not have been able to achieve on their own.
conclusionsIn audit and feedback group sessions, both audit and feedback information and group discussion can valuably contribute to GPs' motivation to change care practice behaviour. Peer interaction can positively contribute to explore alternative practices and avenues for improvement. Local or regional peer meetings would be beneficial in facilitating reflection and discussion. An important avenue for future studies is to explore the contribution of audit and feedback and small-group discussion to
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.