Observational studyBMJ open2020
Determinants of usefulness in professional behaviour change interventions: observational study of a 15-year national program.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precision public-health intervention for care coordination: a real-world study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Trial
- Implementation and Evaluation of a Digitally Enabled Precision Public Health Intervention to Reduce Inappropriate Gabapentinoid Prescription: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEducational, and audit and feedback interventions are effective in promoting health professional behaviour change and evidence adoption. However, we lack evidence to pinpoint which particular features make them most effective. Our objective is to identify determinants of quality in professional behaviour change interventions, as perceived by participants.
designWe performed a comparative observational study using data from the Veterans' Medicines Advice and Therapeutics Education Services program, a nation-wide Australian Government Department of Veterans' Affairs funded program that provides medicines advice and promotes physician adoption of best practices by use of a multifaceted intervention (educational material and a feedback document containing individual patient information).
settingPrimary care practices providing care to Australian veterans.
participantsGeneral practitioners (GPs) targeted by 51 distinct behaviour change interventions, implemented between November 2004 and June 2018. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We extracted features related to presentation (number of images, tables and characters), content (polarity and subjectivity using sentiment analysis, number of external links and medicine mentions) and the use of five behaviour change techniques (prompt/cues, goal setting, discrepancy between current behaviour and goal, information about health consequences, feedback on behaviour). The main outcome was perceived usefulness, extracted from postintervention survey.
resultsOn average, each intervention was delivered to 9667 GPs. Prompt and goal setting strategies in the audit and feedback were independently correlated to perceived usefulness (p=0.030 and p=0.005, respectively). The number of distinct behaviour change techniques in the audit and feedback was correlated with improved usefulness (Pearson's coefficient 0.45 (0.19, 0.65), p=0.001). No presentation or content features in the educational material were correlated with perceived usefulness.
conclusionsThe finding provides additional evidence encouraging the use of behaviour change techniques, in particular prompt and goal setting, in audit and feedback interventions.
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.