ArticleBMJ quality & safety2026
Who chooses to engage? Understanding the characteristics of physicians who voluntarily engage with an audit and feedback intervention: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVoluntary clinician engagement in audit and feedback (A&F) initiatives is often suboptimal. We compared a range of characteristics between physicians who voluntarily engaged and those who did not.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative databases and a survey. The cohort included Ontario primary care physicians practising between April 2017 and March 2020. The A&F group voluntarily enrolled in an A&F intervention; control physicians did not enrol. We compared demographic, practice and patient characteristics between groups. Four validated questionnaires measured beliefs about feedback and improvement. Logistic regression modelled adjusted odds of A&F engagement.
resultsOf 10 654 active primary care physicians in Ontario, 1400 voluntarily engaged in A&F compared with 9254 controls. Physicians had higher odds of engaging with A&F if they had a larger roster size (OR (95% CI) 2.75 (2.15 to 3.51), p<0.001) and worked in home care (1.75 (1.55 to 1.97), p<0.001), and lower odds of engaging if they had higher continuity of care (0.66 (0.49 to 0.90), p=0.008), practised for more years (0.53 (0.44 to 0.62), p<0.001) and enrolled in a fee-for-service model (0.74 (0.65 to 0.85), p<0.001). Physicians engaged with A&F had fewer racialised or immigrant patients (25% vs 30% in marginalisation quintile 5, standardised mean difference=0.10), while other demographic characteristics were similar. Among the survey respondents (36 A&F physicians and 90 controls), higher principal support (2.28 (1.29 to 4.48), p=0.008), lower perceived need for change (discrepancy) (0.39 (0.20 to 0.70), p=0.003) and lower engagement in QI (0.43 (0.18 to 0.88), p=0.032) predicted A&F engagement.
conclusionTo expand A&F's reach and impact, future efforts should (1) tailor outreach to physicians with larger, more diverse practice populations, (2) seek to understand why physicians with higher perceived need for change engage less, (3) understand which physicians are most likely to benefit and (4) co-design how to make A&F more relevant and actionable for those serving marginalised communities.
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.