ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Exploring the role of audit and feedback cycle in primary healthcare quality improvement.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. 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.
- Administrative interventions in antimicrobial stewardship: a global scoping review of all WHO regions.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe audit and feedback (A&F) cycle involves systematic assessment of clinical performance, followed by structured feedback to physicians in order to facilitate quality improvement in their clinical practice. This study examines the effectiveness of A&F cycles in improving clinical practices among Primary Healthcare Physicians (PHCPs) and the intervention's applicability in Karachi, Pakistan.
methodsThis retrospective study evaluated PHCPs employed by SINA from 2019 to 2023, focusing on the impact of A&F cycles on clinical performance. Data were collected from on-site and Electronic Medical Records (EMR) audits, followed by structured feedback sessions aimed at promoting practice improvements. A total of 61 PHCPs were analyzed based on inclusion criteria encompassing those who completed the A&F protocols. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 26 and the McNemar test was applied to see the significant differences in the baseline and the follow-up audit.
resultsThe study revealed significant improvements in PHCPs' clinical practices post-intervention. Notable enhancements were observed in consultation skills, history taking, provisional diagnosis, and adherence to clinical protocols. The management of common clinical conditions, including fever, respiratory issues, dermatological cases, and gastrointestinal disorders, also showed marked improvements.
conclusionThe A&F cycle is a viable intervention for enhancing clinical practices in PHC settings. The findings highlight the potential of A&F to drive quality improvements in healthcare delivery to resource-limited settings in Karachi. Further longitudinal studies are recommended to assess the sustainability of these practice enhancements and to explore the role of contextual factors in the effectiveness of A&F interventions.
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.