ArticleBMC health services research2021
The impact of audit and feedback to support change behaviour in healthcare organisations - a cross-sectional qualitative study of primary care centre managers.
Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Building a Mental Health-Ready Nursing Workforce: A Scoping Review of Preparatory Interventions.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Sustained Improvement in Urine Testing Quality Indicator Through an Audit-and-Feedback Intervention in Japanese Primary Care: A Before-and-After Study.Journal of general and family medicine · 2026Article
- Administrative interventions in antimicrobial stewardship: a global scoping review of all WHO regions.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Improving lipid-lowering treatment and cardiovascular risk management in primary care: findings from an audit and feedback project.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- The engagement equation: a model for understanding what drives voluntary physician engagement with data-driven clinical performance feedback.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Article
- Improving patient reported experience in inpatients with palliative care needs: a pre-post quality improvement study.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Incorporating clinician insight and care plans into an audit and feedback initiative for antipsychotic prescribing to Medicaid-enrolled youth in Philadelphia.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Project ECHOBMC health services research · 2024Article
- Developing a questionnaire to evaluate an automated audit & feedback intervention: a Rand-modified Delphi method.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Access to automated comparative feedback reports in primary care - a study of intensity of use and relationship with clinical performance among Swedish primary care practices.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Health system interventions and responses to anti-microbial resistance: A scoping review of evidence from 15 African countries.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Promoting health information system in guiding decisions for improving performance: an intervention study at the Research Institute of Ophthalmology, Giza, Egypt.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Better with GPs as managers? - Variation in perceptions of feedback messages, goal-clarity and performance across manager´s in Swedish primary care.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- The management of healthcare employees' job satisfaction: optimization analyses from a series of large-scale surveys.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Audit as a Tool for Improving the Quality of Stroke Care: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Promoting practice change towards environmentally sustainable health care: more than meets the eye.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023Article
- Professional medical education approaches: mobilizing evidence for clinicians.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- [Effects of statutory quality assurance in acute inpatient care].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis article addresses the role of audit and feedback (A&F) to support change behaviour and quality improvement work in healthcare organisations. It contributes to the sparse literature on primary care centre (PCC) managers´ views on A&F practices, taking into account the broad scope of primary care. The purpose was to explore if and how different types of A&F support change behaviour by influencing different forms of motivation and learning, and what contextual facilitators and barriers enable or obstruct change behaviour in primary care.
methodsA qualitative research approach was used. We explored views about the impact of A&F across managers of 27 PCCs, in five Swedish regions, through semi-structured interviews. A purposeful sampling was used to identify both regions and PCC managers, in order to explore multiple perspectives. We used the COM-B framework, which describes how Capability, Opportunity and Motivation interact and generate change behaviour and how different factors might act as facilitators or barriers, when collecting and analysing data.
resultsExisting forms of A&F were perceived as coercive top-down interventions to secure adherence to contractual obligations, financial targets and clinical guidelines. Support to bottom-up approaches and more complex change at team and organisational levels was perceived as limited. We identified five contextual factors that matter for the impact of A&F on change behaviour and quality improvement work: performance of organisations, continuity in staff, size of organisations, flexibility in leadership and management, and flexibility offered by the external environment.
conclusionsExternal A&F, perceived as coercive by recipients of feedback, can have an impact on change behaviour through 'know-what' and 'know-why' types of knowledge and 'have-to' commitment but provide limited support to complex change. 'Want-to' commitment and bottom-up driven processes are important for more complex change. Similar to previous research, identified facilitators and barriers of change consisted of factors that are difficult to influence by A&F activities. Future research is needed on how to ensure co-development of A&F models that are perceived as legitimate by health care professionals and useful to support more complex change.
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.