Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40133946›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2025

Reporting feedback on healthcare outcomes to improve quality in care: a scoping review.

Mariam P Ali, Elyke H Visser, Rachel L West, Desirée van Noord, C Janneke van der Woude, Welmoed K van Deen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Mariam P AliDivision of Health Technology Assessment, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0008-7468-8545
Elyke H VisserDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Franciscus Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Rachel L WestDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Franciscus Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Desirée van NoordDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Franciscus Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
C Janneke van der WoudeDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC-University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Welmoed K van DeenDivision of Health Technology Assessment, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. vandeen@eshpm.eur.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding healthcare providers (HCPs) feedback on their practice patterns and achieved outcomes is a mild to moderately effective strategy for improving healthcare quality. Best practices for providing feedback have been proposed. However, it is unknown how these strategies are implemented in practice and what their real-world effectiveness is. This scoping review addresses this gap by examining the use and reported impact of feedback reporting practices in various clinical fields.

methodsA systematic review of the literature was conducted, and electronic databases were searched for publications in English between 2010-June 2024. We included studies that utilized and evaluated feedback reporting to change HCP behaviours and enhance outcomes, using either qualitative or quantitative designs. Two researchers reviewed and extracted data from full texts of eligible studies, including information on study objectives, types of quality indicators, sources of data, types of feedback reporting practices, and co-interventions implemented.

resultsIn 279 included studies we found that most studies implemented best practices in reporting feedback, including peer comparisons (66%), active delivery of feedback (65%), timely feedback (56%), feedback specific to HCPs' practice (37%), and reporting feedback in group settings (27%). The majority (68%) combined feedback with co-interventions, such as education, post-feedback consultations, reminders, action toolboxes, social influence, and incentives. 81% showed improvement in quality indicators associated with feedback interventions. Interventions targeting outcome measures were reported as less successful than those targeting process measures, or both. Feedback interventions appeared to be more successful when supplemented with post-feedback consultations, reminders, education, and action toolboxes.

conclusionThis review provides a comprehensive overview of strategies used to implement feedback interventions in a wide range of practice settings. Targeting process measures or combining them with outcome measures results in more positive outcomes. Additionally, feedback interventions may be slightly more effective when combined with other interventions designed to facilitate behaviour change. These findings can provide valuable insights for others wishing to implement similar interventions. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GAJVS .

Indexed as

FeedbackFormative FeedbackHealth PersonnelOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality ImprovementQuality of Health CareHumansImplementation ScienceQuality Indicators, Health CareAudit and feedbackFeedback reportsHealthcare providersPerformance measurementQuality of careValue-based healthcare

Identifiers

PMID40133946
PMCPMC11934531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.