Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35275082›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Improving the Development and Implementation of Audit and Feedback Systems to Support Health Care Workers in Limiting Antimicrobial Resistance in the Hospital: Scoping Review.

Julia Keizer, Britt E Bente, Nashwan Al Naiemi, Lisette Jewc Van Gemert-Pijnen, Nienke Beerlage-De Jong

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Julia KeizerCentre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, Section of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0080-436X
Britt E BenteCentre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, Section of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9142-4946
Nashwan Al NaiemiLaboratorium Microbiologie Twente Achterhoek, Hengelo, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0176-9853
Lisette Jewc Van Gemert-PijnenCentre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, Section of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6511-7240
Nienke Beerlage-De JongSection of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1567-5196

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor eHealth technologies in general and audit and feedback (AF) systems specifically, integrating interdisciplinary theoretical underpinnings is essential, as it increases the likelihood of achieving desired outcomes by ensuring a fit among eHealth technology, stakeholders, and their context. In addition, reporting on the development and implementation process of AF systems, including substantiations of choices, enables the identification of best practices and accumulation of knowledge across studies but is often not elaborated on in publications.

objectiveThis scoping review aims to provide insights into the development and implementation strategies for AF systems for a real-world problem that threatens modern health care-antimicrobial resistance-and provide an interdisciplinary conceptual framework that can serve as a checklist and guidance for making informed choices in the development and implementation of future AF systems.

methodsA scoping review was conducted by querying PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, and Embase (≥2010) for studies describing either the development or implementation process, or both, of an AF system for antimicrobial resistance or infections in hospitals. Studies reporting only on effectiveness or impact were excluded. A total of 3 independent reviewers performed the study selection, and 2 reviewers constructed the conceptual framework through the axial and selective coding of often-used theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) from the literature on AF and eHealth development and implementation. Subsequently, the conceptual framework was used for the systematic extraction and interpretation of the studies' descriptions of AF systems and their development and implementation.

resultsThe search resulted in 2125 studies that were screened for eligibility, of which 12 (0.56%); 2012-2020) were included. These studies described the development and implementation processes heterogeneously in terms of study aims, study targets, target groups, methods, and theoretical underpinnings. Few studies have explicitly explained how choices for the development and implementation of AF systems were substantiated by the TMFs. The conceptual framework provided insights into what is reported on the development and implementation process and revealed underreported AF system constructs (eg, AF system design; engagement with the AF system; and comparison, goal setting, and action planning) and development and implementation (eg, champions) constructs.

conclusionsThis scoping review showed the current heterogeneous reporting of AF systems and their development and implementation processes and exemplified how interdisciplinary TMFs can (and should) be balanced in a conceptual framework to capture relevant AF systems and development and implementation constructs. Thereby, it provides a concrete checklist and overall guidance that supports the professionalization and harmonization of AF system development and implementation. For the development and implementation of future AF systems and other eHealth technologies, researchers and health care workers should be supported in selecting and integrating TMFs into their development and implementation process and encouraged to explicitly report on theoretical underpinnings and the substantiation of choices.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, BacterialFeedbackHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansAnti-Bacterial Agentsantibiotic stewardshipantimicrobial resistanceaudit and feedbackdevelopmenteHealthimplementationinfection controlscoping review

Identifiers

PMID35275082
PMCPMC8957011

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.