ArticleBMC health services research2024
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.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing primary care quality improvement through national data collection and validation: the primary care quality initiative in Sweden.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital applications that automatically extract information from electronic medical records and provide comparative visualizations of the data in the form of quality indicators to primary care practices may facilitate local quality improvement (QI). A necessary condition for such QI to work is that practices actively access the data. The purpose of this study was to explore the use of an application that visualizes quality indicators in Swedish primary care, developed by a profession-led QI initiative ("Primärvårdskvalitet"). We also describe the characteristics of practices that used the application more or less extensively, and the relationships between the intensity of use and changes in selected performance indicators.
methodsWe studied longitudinal data on 122 primary care practices' visits to pages (page views) in the application over a period up to 5 years. We compared high and low users, classified by the average number of monthly page views, with respect to practice and patient characteristics as well as baseline measurements of a subset of the performance indicators. We estimated linear associations between visits to pages with diabetes-related indicators and the change in measurements of selected diabetes indicators over 1.5 years.
resultsLess than half of all practices accessed the data in a given month, although most practices accessed the data during at least one third of the observed months. High and low users were similar in terms of most studied characteristics. We found statistically significant positive associations between use of the diabetes indicators and changes in measurements of three diabetes indicators.
conclusionsAlthough most practices in this study indicated an interest in the automated feedback reports, the intensity of use can be described as varying and on average limited. The positive associations between the use and changes in performance suggest that policymakers should increase their support of practices' QI efforts. Such support may include providing a formalized structure for peer group discussions of data, facilitating both understanding of the data and possible action points to improve performance, while maintaining a profession-led use of applications.
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.