Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37885018›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2023

Sustainability, spread, and scale in trials using audit and feedback: a theory-informed, secondary analysis of a systematic review.

Celia Laur, Zeenat Ladak, Alix Hall, Nathan M Solbak, Nicole Nathan, Shewit Buzuayne, Janet A Curran, Rachel C Shelton, Noah Ivers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2023. 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. Review
  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

9 authors.

Celia LaurWomen's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, 76 Grenville Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 1B2, Canada. Celia.Laur@wchospital.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-4555-1407
Zeenat LadakWomen's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, 76 Grenville Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 1B2, Canada.
Alix HallSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Nathan M SolbakPhysician Learning Program, Continuing Medical Education and Professional Development, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Nicole NathanSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Shewit BuzuayneWomen's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, 76 Grenville Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 1B2, Canada.
Janet A CurranSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada.
Rachel C SheltonDepartment of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Noah IversWomen's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, 76 Grenville Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 1B2, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) is a widely used implementation strategy to influence health professionals' behavior that is often tested in implementation trials. This study examines how A&F trials describe sustainability, spread, and scale.

methodsThis is a theory-informed, descriptive, secondary analysis of an update of the Cochrane systematic review of A&F trials, including all trials published since 2011. Keyword searches related to sustainability, spread, and scale were conducted. Trials with at least one keyword, and those identified from a forward citation search, were extracted to examine how they described sustainability, spread, and scale. Results were qualitatively analyzed using the Integrated Sustainability Framework (ISF) and the Framework for Going to Full Scale (FGFS).

resultsFrom the larger review, n = 161 studies met eligibility criteria. Seventy-eight percent (n = 126) of trials included at least one keyword on sustainability, and 49% (n = 62) of those studies (39% overall) frequently mentioned sustainability based on inclusion of relevant text in multiple sections of the paper. For spread/scale, 62% (n = 100) of trials included at least one relevant keyword and 51% (n = 51) of those studies (31% overall) frequently mentioned spread/scale. A total of n = 38 studies from the forward citation search were included in the qualitative analysis. Although many studies mentioned the need to consider sustainability, there was limited detail on how this was planned, implemented, or assessed. The most frequent sustainability period duration was 12 months. Qualitative results mapped to the ISF, but not all determinants were represented. Strong alignment was found with the FGFS for phases of scale-up and support systems (infrastructure), but not for adoption mechanisms. New spread/scale themes included (1) aligning affordability and scalability; (2) balancing fidelity and scalability; and (3) balancing effect size and scalability.

conclusionA&F trials should plan for sustainability, spread, and scale so that if the trial is effective, the benefits can continue. A deeper empirical understanding of the factors impacting A&F sustainability is needed. Scalability planning should go beyond cost and infrastructure to consider other adoption mechanisms, such as leadership, policy, and communication, that may support further scalability.

trial registrationRegistered with Prospero in May 2022. CRD42022332606.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth PersonnelSystematic Reviews as TopicFeedbackHumansLeadershipAudit and feedbackImplementationScaleSpreadSustainabilitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37885018
PMCPMC10604689

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.