Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34059154›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2021

Interactive and Participatory Audit and Feedback (IPAF): theory-based development and multi-site implementation outcomes with specialty clinic staff.

Edmond Ramly, Diane R Lauver, Andrea Gilmore-Bykovskyi, Christie M Bartels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Edmond Ramly *Department of Family and Community Medicine, School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Diane R Lauver *School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Andrea Gilmore-BykovskyiSchool of Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Christie M BartelsDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1685 Highland Ave, Rm 4132, Madison, WI, 53705-2281, USA. cb4@medicine.wisc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6523-0374

Funding

University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR002373 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ELIZABETH S BURNSIDE, Allan R. Brasier · 2017 to 2026
$75.9M
Impact of Rheumatologist Communication Upon Managing Cardiovascular Risk in RAK23AR062381 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI BARTELS, CHRISTIE MICHELS · 2012 to 2015
$423k
Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison Clinical and Community Outcomes ResearchNCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002373NIAMS NIH HHS K23 AR062381Pfizer (US) Independent Grants for Learning and Change
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTheory-based implementation strategies, such as audit and feedback (A&F), can improve the adoption of evidence-based practices. However, few strategies have been developed and tested to meet the needs of specialty clinics. In particular, frontline staff can execute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction protocols, but A&F strategies to support them are not well examined. Our objective was to develop and evaluate a theory-based approach to A&F, Interactive and Participatory A&F (IPAF).

methodsWe developed IPAF informed by two complementary theories, self-regulation theory (SRT) and self-determination theory (SDT). IPAF applies concepts from these theories to inform (1) what to address with staff to improve rates of best practices (SRT) and (2) how to interact with staff to improve behaviors aligned with best practices (SDT). We promoted IPAF fidelity by developing a semi-structured guide to facilitate staff discussion of target behaviors, perceived barriers, goals, and action plans. We evaluated IPAF in the context of eight quasi-experimental implementations in specialty clinics across two health systems. Following a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation design, we reported intervention outcomes for CVD risk reduction elsewhere. This paper reports implementation outcomes associated with IPAF, focusing on feasibility, appropriateness, acceptability, fidelity, and adoption. We evaluated implementation outcomes using mixed-methods data including electronic health record (EHR) data, team records, and staff questionnaire responses.

resultsEighteen staff participated in 99 monthly, individual, synchronous (face-to-face or phone) IPAF sessions during the first 6 months of implementation. Subsequently, we provided over 375 monthly feedback emails. Feasibility data revealed high staff attendance (90-93%) and engagement in IPAF sessions. Staff highly rated questionnaire items about IPAF acceptability. Team records and staff responses demonstrated fidelity of IPAF delivery and receipt. Adoption of target behaviors increased significantly (all P values < 0.05), and adoption or behaviors were maintained for over 24 months.

conclusionsWe developed and evaluated a theory-based approach to A&F with frontline staff in specialty clinics to improve the implementation of evidence-based interventions. The findings support feasibility, appropriateness, acceptability, and fidelity of IPAF, and staff adoption and maintenance of target behaviors. By evaluating multi-site implementation outcomes, we extended prior research on clinic protocols and A&F beyond primary care settings and providers.

Indexed as

Audit and feedbackCardiovascular diseaseEffectiveness-implementation hybridFrontline staffImplementation outcomesImplementation strategiesMedical assistantsPreventive careSpecialty clinicsTheory-based strategies

Identifiers

PMID34059154
PMCPMC8167954

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.