Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34229678›Full record

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.

Anna H Glenngård, Anders Anell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Project ECHOBMC health services research · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Audit as a Tool for Improving the Quality of Stroke Care: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  17. Promoting practice change towards environmentally sustainable health care: more than meets the eye.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. [Effects of statutory quality assurance in acute inpatient care].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022
    Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna H GlenngårdDepartment of Business Administration, Lund University School of Economics and Management, Box 7080, 2SE-220 07, Lund, Sweden. anna.glenngard@fek.lu.se.
Anders AnellDepartment of Business Administration, Lund University School of Economics and Management, Box 7080, 2SE-220 07, Lund, Sweden.
Lund University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Delivery of Health CarePrimary Health CareCross-Sectional StudiesFeedbackHumansQualitative ResearchAudit and feedbackCapabilityChange behaviourCOM-BMotivationOpportunityPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID34229678
PMCPMC8258937
OpenAlexW3180872827

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.