ArticleImplementation science communications2025
The engagement equation: a model for understanding what drives voluntary physician engagement with data-driven clinical performance feedback.
Article in Implementation science communications, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical performance feedback (CPF) is widely used to support physician development and improve care. Yet, its impact remains limited by low voluntary engagement. This study sought to: (1) develop a theory-informed, report-agnostic model outlining the key beliefs that shape physician engagement with CPF; (2) explore patterns of feedback orientation across physicians; and (3) understand how individual perceptions influence engagement with CPF.
methodsWe used a cross-sectional, multi-method approach combining a survey and qualitative interviews with primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada. We validated a conceptual model using path analysis, explored heterogeneity in feedback orientation using latent profile analysis, and qualitatively examined how perceptions of CPF influenced engagement.
resultsSurvey results (n = 206) supported a model in which engagement with CPF is shaped by five recipient characteristics: perceived need for change (change discrepancy), perceived value of CPF, confidence to act on feedback (feedback self-efficacy), belief that feedback is useful (feedback utility), and sense of responsibility to act (feedback accountability). Perceived utility mediated the effects of self-efficacy and value on accountability, and perceived need for change influenced value. Latent profile analysis identified three groups: physicians with high and balanced feedback orientation (n = 32), moderate and balanced (n = 143), and low feedback orientation with low self-efficacy (n = 31). Interview findings (n = 9) revealed two mindsets: physicians who saw value in CPF despite its limitations (engagers), and those who dismissed its relevance (non-engagers). These mindsets aligned with differences in value, utility, and accountability scores from the survey.
conclusionsEngagement with CPF is not one-size-fits-all. Physicians differ in how they appraise and act on feedback based on their beliefs about its relevance, usefulness, and their ability to act. CPF initiatives should explicitly link feedback to improved patient outcomes, focus on future actions, and provide clear, actionable guidance. Designing CPF that accounts for recipient heterogeneity is essential to realizing its full potential as an improvement strategy.
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.