ArticleBMC health services research2024
Developing a questionnaire to evaluate an automated audit & feedback intervention: a Rand-modified Delphi method.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From quality indicator to quality measurement: design and implementation of an automated audit and feedback tool for chronic kidney disease in Belgian primary care.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Cancer Prevention Literacy Questionnaire (CPL-Q): development and validation within the World Code Against Cancer Framework.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Development and early implementation of automated audit and feedback monitoring instruments in Belgian primary care: lessons for scalable systems.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026Article
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
backgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) is a widely used implementation strategy to evaluate and improve medical practice. The optimal design of an A&F system is uncertain and structured process evaluations are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire to evaluate the use of automated A&F systems.
methodsBased on the Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) and the REFLECT-52 (REassessing audit & Feedback interventions: a tooL for Evaluating Compliance with suggested besT practices) evaluation tool a questionnaire was designed for the purpose of evaluating automated A&F systems. A Rand-modified Delphi method was used to develop the process evaluation and obtain validation. Fourteen experts from different domains in primary care consented to participate and individually scored the questions on a 9-point Likert scale. Afterwards, the questions were discussed in a consensus meeting. After approval, the final questionnaire was compiled.
resultsA 34-question questionnaire composed of 57 items was developed and presented to the expert panel. The consensus meeting resulted in a selection of 31 questions, subdivided into 43 items. A final list of 30 questions consisting of 42 items was obtained.
conclusionA questionnaire consisting of 30 questions was drawn up for the assessment and improvement of automated A&F systems, based on CP-FIT and REFLECT-52 theory and approved by experts. Next steps will be piloting and implementation of the questionnaire.
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.