NDLI: Engagement is a necessary condition to test audit and feedback design features: results of a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial with an embedded process evaluation

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	McCleary, Nicola Desveaux, Laura Presseau, Justin Reis, Catherine Witteman, Holly O. Taljaard, Monica Linklater, Stefanie Thavorn, Kednapa Dobell, Gail Mulhall, Cara L. Lam, Jonathan M. C. Grimshaw, Jeremy M. Ivers, Noah M.
Abstract	Background While audit & feedback (A&F) is an effective implementation intervention, the design elements which maximize effectiveness are unclear. Partnering with a healthcare quality advisory organization already delivering feedback, we conducted a pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, cluster-randomized trial to test the impact of variations in two factors: (A) the benchmark used for comparison and (B) information framing. An embedded process evaluation explored hypothesized mechanisms of effect. Methods Eligible physicians worked in nursing homes in Ontario, Canada, and had voluntarily signed up to receive the report. Groups of nursing homes sharing physicians were randomized to (A) physicians’ individual prescribing rates compared to top-performing peers (the top quartile) or the provincial median and (B) risk-framed information (reporting the number of patients prescribed high-risk medication) or benefit-framed information (reporting the number of patients not prescribed). We hypothesized that the top quartile comparator and risk-framing would lead to greater practice improvements. The primary outcome was the mean number of central nervous system-active medications per resident per month. Primary analyses compared the four arms at 6 months post-intervention. Factorial analyses were secondary. The process evaluation comprised a follow-up questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. Results Two hundred sixty-seven physicians (152 clusters) were randomized: 67 to arm 1 (median benchmark, benefit framing), 65 to arm 2 (top quartile benchmark, benefit framing), 75 to arm 3 (median benchmark, risk framing), and 60 to arm 4 (top quartile benchmark, risk framing). There were no significant differences in the primary outcome across arms or for each factor. However, engagement was low (27–31% of physicians across arms downloaded the report). The process evaluation indicated that both factors minimally impacted the proposed mechanisms. However, risk-framed feedback was perceived as more actionable and more compatible with current workflows, whilst a higher target might encourage behaviour change when physicians identified with the comparator. Conclusions Risk framing and a top quartile comparator have the potential to achieve change. Further work to establish the strategies most likely to enhance A&F engagement, particularly with physicians who may be most likely to benefit from feedback, is required to support meaningfully addressing intricate research questions concerning the design of A&F. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02979964 . Registered 29 November 2016.
Related Links	https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s13012-023-01271-6.pdf
Ending Page	14
Page Count	14
Starting Page	1
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	17485908
DOI	10.1186/s13012-023-01271-6
Journal	Implementation Science
Issue Number	1
Volume Number	18
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2023-05-10
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Health Services Research Public Health Health Informatics Health Policy Health Administration Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Nursing home Audit and feedback Prescribing High-risk medications Cluster-randomized trial Process evaluation
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Health Policy Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health Health Informatics
Journal Impact Factor	8.8/2023
5-Year Journal Impact Factor	9.2/2023

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Testing feedback message framing and comparators to address prescribing of high-risk medications in nursing homes: protocol for a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial

Appropriate prescribing in nursing homes demonstration project (APDP) study protocol: pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial and mixed methods process evaluation of an Ontario policy-maker initiative to improve appropriate prescribing of antipsychotics

A multiple-behaviour investigation of goal prioritisation in physicians receiving audit and feedback to address high-risk prescribing in nursing homes

Optimizing responsiveness to feedback about antibiotic prescribing in primary care: protocol for two interrelated randomized implementation trials with embedded process evaluations

Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing antibiotic prescribing behaviour in general dental practice (the RAPiD trial): a partial factorial cluster randomised trial protocol

Effectiveness of confidential reports to physicians on their prescribing of antipsychotic medications in nursing homes

A randomised fractional factorial screening experiment to predict effective features of audit and feedback

Comparing effects of two higher intensity feedback interventions with simple feedback on improving staff communication in nursing homes—the INFORM cluster-randomized controlled trial

Audit and feedback with or without training in-practice targeting antibiotic prescribing (TiPTAP): a study protocol of a cluster randomised trial in dental primary care

Engagement is a necessary condition to test audit and feedback design features: results of a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial with an embedded process evaluation

Similar Documents

Testing feedback message framing and comparators to address prescribing of high-risk medications in nursing homes: protocol for a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial

Appropriate prescribing in nursing homes demonstration project (APDP) study protocol: pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial and mixed methods process evaluation of an Ontario policy-maker initiative to improve appropriate prescribing of antipsychotics

A multiple-behaviour investigation of goal prioritisation in physicians receiving audit and feedback to address high-risk prescribing in nursing homes

Optimizing responsiveness to feedback about antibiotic prescribing in primary care: protocol for two interrelated randomized implementation trials with embedded process evaluations

Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing antibiotic prescribing behaviour in general dental practice (the RAPiD trial): a partial factorial cluster randomised trial protocol

Effectiveness of confidential reports to physicians on their prescribing of antipsychotic medications in nursing homes

A randomised fractional factorial screening experiment to predict effective features of audit and feedback

Comparing effects of two higher intensity feedback interventions with simple feedback on improving staff communication in nursing homes—the INFORM cluster-randomized controlled trial

Audit and feedback with or without training in-practice targeting antibiotic prescribing (TiPTAP): a study protocol of a cluster randomised trial in dental primary care

Engagement is a necessary condition to test audit and feedback design features: results of a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial with an embedded process evaluation