ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2026
Multicomponent audit and feedback for colonoscopy quality improvement among potentially lower-performing endoscopists.
Article in Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Study Aims: Multicomponent audit and feedback (A&F) initiatives pair performance reports with education to improve quality. A&F is most effective for those with greatest room for improvement, but effects depend on engagement with A&F. The study objectives were to (1) determine the proportion of potentially lower-performing endoscopists who participated in a voluntary multicomponent A&F initiative, (2) identify barriers and facilitators to endoscopist participation, and (3) describe the actions taken by endoscopists after exposure to this initiative. Participants and Methods: We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods study. All potentially lower-performing endoscopists practicing in Ontario in 2015 were invited to participate in a voluntary multicomponent A&F initiative; participation rates were tracked. Subsequently, endoscopists were invited to an interview to share their experience with the A&F initiative. Interviews were transcribed. Data were analyzed using directed and conventional content analyses. Results: We identified 121 potentially lower-performing endoscopists among the 885 practicing in Ontario in 2015. Only 25 endoscopists (20.7%) participated in the A&F initiative. Eleven of 121 endoscopists completed the interview. Interviewees discussed 18 facilitators and 11 barriers to participation in the A&F initiative. Some interviewees took steps to improve their colonoscopy quality, changed documentation practices to improve the accuracy of future A&F reports, or adopted potentially inappropriate documentation or patient care practices to look better on future A&F reports. Conclusions: The low participation rate, the range of drivers of endoscopist participation, and the intended and unintended effects identified suggest that A&F initiatives are complex interventions requiring careful design and evaluation.
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.