Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37990269›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2023

Identifying behaviour change techniques in 287 randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback interventions targeting practice change among healthcare professionals.

Jacob Crawshaw, Carly Meyer, Vivi Antonopoulou, Jesmin Antony, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Noah Ivers, Kristin Konnyu, Meagan Lacroix, Justin Presseau, Michelle Simeoni and 2 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
17.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Precision feedback: A conceptual model.Learning health systems · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Jacob Crawshaw *Centre for Evidence-Based Implementation, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6302-1496
Carly Meyer *Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Vivi Antonopoulou *Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Jesmin AntonyWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jeremy M GrimshawCentre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Noah IversWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kristin KonnyuDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Meagan LacroixWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Justin PresseauCentre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Michelle SimeoniWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sharlini YogasingamCentre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Fabiana LorencattoDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. f.lorencatto@ucl.ac.uk.
Women's College Hospital · CAUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Ottawa · CABrown University · USHamilton Health Sciences · CAOttawa Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) is among the most widely used implementation strategies, providing healthcare professionals with summaries of their practice performance to prompt behaviour change and optimize care. Wide variability in effectiveness of A&F has spurred efforts to explore why some A&F interventions are more effective than others. Unpacking the variability of the content of A&F interventions in terms of their component behaviours change techniques (BCTs) may help advance our understanding of how A&F works best. This study aimed to systematically specify BCTs in A&F interventions targeting healthcare professional practice change.

methodsWe conducted a directed content analysis of intervention descriptions in 287 randomized trials included in an ongoing Cochrane systematic review update of A&F interventions (searched up to June 2020). Three trained researchers identified and categorized BCTs in all trial arms (treatment & control/comparator) using the 93-item BCT Taxonomy version 1. The original BCT definitions and examples in the taxonomy were adapted to include A&F-specific decision rules and examples. Two additional BCTs ('Education (unspecified)' and 'Feedback (unspecified)') were added, such that 95 BCTs were considered for coding.

resultsIn total, 47/95 BCTs (49%) were identified across 360 treatment arms at least once (median = 5.0, IQR = 2.3, range = 129 per arm). The most common BCTs were 'Feedback on behaviour' (present 89% of the time; e.g. feedback on drug prescribing), 'Instruction on how to perform the behaviour' (71%; e.g. issuing a clinical guideline), 'Social comparison' (52%; e.g. feedback on performance of peers), 'Credible source' (41%; e.g. endorsements from respected professional body), and 'Education (unspecified)' (31%; e.g. giving a lecture to staff). A total of 130/287 (45%) control/comparator arms contained at least one BCT (median = 2.0, IQR = 3.0, range = 0-15 per arm), of which the most common were identical to those identified in treatment arms.

conclusionsA&F interventions to improve healthcare professional practice include a moderate range of BCTs, focusing predominantly on providing behavioural feedback, sharing guidelines, peer comparison data, education, and leveraging credible sources. We encourage the use of our A&F-specific list of BCTs to improve knowledge of what is being delivered in A&F interventions. Our study provides a basis for exploring which BCTs are associated with intervention effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: N/A.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyDelivery of Health CareFeedbackHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAudit and feedbackBehaviour change techniquesHealthcare professionalsImplementationPractice changeQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID37990269
PMCPMC10664600
OpenAlexW4388855409

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.