Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40115421›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2025

Impact of provider feedback on quality improvement in rehabilitation services: an interrupted time series analysis.

Anne-Lene Sand-Svartrud, Hanne Dagfinrud, Johanne Fossen, Heidi Framstad, Eirik Lind Irgens, Hild Kristin Morvik, Joseph Sexton, Rikke Helene Moe, Ingvild Kjeken

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03764982 (RehabNytte - A Multi Center Study in Specialized Rehabilitation Centers in Norway Exploring Health, Function, Workability and Quality of Life Following Rehabilitation), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT03764982 unknown statusnot on this map

RehabNytte - A Multi Center Study in Specialized Rehabilitation Centers in Norway Exploring Health, Function, Workability and Quality of Life Following Rehabilitation

TypeobservationalSponsorDiakonhjemmet HospitalRan2019 to 2025Enrolled3,793ConditionsRehabilitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Anne-Lene Sand-SvartrudHealth Services Research and Innovation Unit, Centre for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Hanne DagfinrudHealth Services Research and Innovation Unit, Centre for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Johanne FossenHLF Rehabilitation, Oslo, Norway.
Heidi FramstadRøysumtunet Rehabilitation Centre, Jaren, Norway.
Eirik Lind IrgensHelsepartner Rehabilitation Centre, Alta, Norway.
Hild Kristin MorvikÅstveit Health Centre, Åsane I Bergen, Norway.
Joseph SextonDivision of Rheumatology and Research, Centre for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Rikke Helene MoeHealth Services Research and Innovation Unit, Centre for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ingvild KjekenHealth Services Research and Innovation Unit, Centre for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Quality improvement in rehabilitation is needed due to unwarranted variations and suboptimal service coordination. Audit and feedback strategies are commonly used to improve healthcare quality, but evidence of their effectiveness in rehabilitation settings is limited. Objective: To evaluate the impact of an audit and feedback strategy on rehabilitation quality, as measured by a set of quality indicators (QIs) specifically designed for rehabilitation. Methods: Interrupted time series analysis was conducted across 16 Norwegian institutions delivering specialized rehabilitation for long-term diseases. Patient-reported rehabilitation quality data was collected continuously before and after a provider feedback intervention, while provider-reported quality was measured once before and after the intervention. We compared 11 pre- and 9 post-intervention observations, each spanning 3 weeks, over a 15-months study period. Results: The analyses included 2,415 patients, with 1,444 (59.8%) pre-intervention and 971 (40.2%) post-intervention. Mixed model analyses revealed that the mean differences in patient-reported QIs between the pre- and post-intervention phase were small and statistically non-significant. The expected impact model, including a gradually higher quality after the feedback to institution managers and clinical team members, was not confirmed. We observed variations in service quality among institutions, also post-intervention. The lowest pass rates were observed for indicators addressing the follow-up, involvement of external services and next of kin. Conclusions: In this multicentre study, the audit and feedback intervention did not lead to improvements in the quality of rehabilitation services, as measured by changes in QI pass rates covering health service structures, processes and patient outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT03764982].

Indexed as

clinical auditfeedbackquality indicatorsquality of health carerehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID40115421
PMCPMC11925202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.