Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38889065›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2024

Exploring Anesthesia Provider Preferences for Precision Feedback: Preference Elicitation Study.

Zach Landis-Lewis, Chris A Andrews, Colin A Gross, Charles P Friedman, Nirav J Shah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Zach Landis-LewisDepartment of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9117-9338
Chris A AndrewsDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5130-6374
Colin A GrossBiostatistics Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7061-5073
Charles P FriedmanDepartment of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3395-5199
Nirav J ShahDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7704-5141

Funding

Anesthetic Induction Overdose Among Elderly Surgical PatientsR01AG059607 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SCHONBERGER, ROBERT · 2019 to 2022
$1.8M
A scalable service to improve health care quality through precision audit and feedbackR01LM013894 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LANDIS-LEWIS, ZACHARY · 2021 to 2024
$1.3M
A knowledge-based message tailoring systemK01LM012528 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LANDIS-LEWIS, ZACHARY · 2017 to 2019
$523k
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG059607NLM NIH HHS K01 LM012528NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013894
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Health care professionals must learn continuously as a core part of their work. As the rate of knowledge production in biomedicine increases, better support for health care professionals' continuous learning is needed. In health systems, feedback is pervasive and is widely considered to be essential for learning that drives improvement. Clinical quality dashboards are one widely deployed approach to delivering feedback, but engagement with these systems is commonly low, reflecting a limited understanding of how to improve the effectiveness of feedback about health care. When coaches and facilitators deliver feedback for improving performance, they aim to be responsive to the recipient's motivations, information needs, and preferences. However, such functionality is largely missing from dashboards and feedback reports. Precision feedback is the delivery of high-value, motivating performance information that is prioritized based on its motivational potential for a specific recipient, including their needs and preferences. Anesthesia care offers a clinical domain with high-quality performance data and an abundance of evidence-based quality metrics. Objective: The objective of this study is to explore anesthesia provider preferences for precision feedback. Methods: We developed a test set of precision feedback messages with balanced characteristics across 4 performance scenarios. We created an experimental design to expose participants to contrasting message versions. We recruited anesthesia providers and elicited their preferences through analysis of the content of preferred messages. Participants additionally rated their perceived benefit of preferred messages to clinical practice on a 5-point Likert scale. Results: We elicited preferences and feedback message benefit ratings from 35 participants. Preferences were diverse across participants but largely consistent within participants. Participants' preferences were consistent for message temporality (α=.85) and display format (α=.80). Ratings of participants' perceived benefit to clinical practice of preferred messages were high (mean rating 4.27, SD 0.77). Conclusions: Health care professionals exhibited diverse yet internally consistent preferences for precision feedback across a set of performance scenarios, while also giving messages high ratings of perceived benefit. A "one-size-fits-most approach" to performance feedback delivery would not appear to satisfy these preferences. Precision feedback systems may hold potential to improve support for health care professionals' continuous learning by accommodating feedback preferences.

Indexed as

FeedbackAdultFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality ImprovementSurveys and Questionnairesanesthesiaanesthesia careaudit and feedbackclinical practicedashboarddesigneffectivenessengagementexperimental designfeedbackmotivationmotivationalperformanceperformance dataprecision feedbackvisualization

Identifiers

PMID38889065
PMCPMC11185285

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.