Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | DEBATE

Computer-supported feedback message tailoring: theory-informed adaptation of clinical audit and feedback for learning and behavior change

Authors: Zach Landis-Lewis, Jamie C Brehaut, Harry Hochheiser, Gerald P Douglas, Rebecca S Jacobson

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Evidence shows that clinical audit and feedback can significantly improve compliance with desired practice, but it is unclear when and how it is effective. Audit and feedback is likely to be more effective when feedback messages can influence barriers to behavior change, but barriers to change differ across individual health-care providers, stemming from differences in providers’ individual characteristics.

Discussion

The purpose of this article is to invite debate and direct research attention towards a novel audit and feedback component that could enable interventions to adapt to barriers to behavior change for individual health-care providers: computer-supported tailoring of feedback messages. We argue that, by leveraging available clinical data, theory-informed knowledge about behavior change, and the knowledge of clinical supervisors or peers who deliver feedback messages, a software application that supports feedback message tailoring could improve feedback message relevance for barriers to behavior change, thereby increasing the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions. We describe a prototype system that supports the provision of tailored feedback messages by generating a menu of graphical and textual messages with associated descriptions of targeted barriers to behavior change. Supervisors could use the menu to select messages based on their awareness of each feedback recipient’s specific barriers to behavior change. We anticipate that such a system, if designed appropriately, could guide supervisors towards giving more effective feedback for health-care providers.

Summary

A foundation of evidence and knowledge in related health research domains supports the development of feedback message tailoring systems for clinical audit and feedback. Creating and evaluating computer-supported feedback tailoring tools is a promising approach to improving the effectiveness of clinical audit and feedback.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Brehaut JC, Eva KW. Building theories of knowledge translation interventions: use the entire menu of constructs. Implementation Sci. 2012; 7:114.CrossRef
2.
Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (Online). 2012; 6:CD000259.
3.
Ivers NM, Sales A, Colquhoun H, Michie S, Foy R, Francis JJ, et al. No more ‘business as usual’ with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention. Implementation Sci. 2014; 9:14.CrossRef
4.
Grol R, Wensing M. What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust. 2004; 180(6 Suppl):S57–60.PubMed
5.
Fretheim A, Oxman AD, Flottorp S. Improving prescribing of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs: a method for identifying and addressing barriers to change. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004; 4:23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M, Davis D. Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.CrossRef
7.
Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ : Br Med J. 2001; 323(7313):625–628.CrossRef
8.
Ilgen D, Davis C. Bearing bad news: reactions to negative performance feedback. Appl Psychol. 2000; 49(3):550–65.CrossRef
9.
Kluger AN, Van Dijk D. Feedback, the various tasks of the doctor, and the feedforward alternative. Med Educ. 2010; 44(12):1166–74.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Biomedical Informatics. Computer applications in health care and biomedicine, 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2006.
11.
Garg AX, Adhikari NKJ, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA : J Am Med Assoc. 2005; 293(10):1223–38.CrossRef
12.
Crowley RS, Medvedeva O. An intelligent tutoring system for visual classification problem solving. Artif Intell Med. 2006; 36:85–117.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Peleg M. Computer-interpretable clinical guidelines: a methodological review. J Biomed Inform. 2013; 46(4):744–63.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Krebs P, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS. Defining what works in tailoring: a meta-analysis of computer-tailored interventions for health behavior change. Prev Med. 2010; 51(3-4):214–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Portnoy DB, Scott-Sheldon LAJ, Johnson BT, Carey MP. Computer-delivered interventions for health promotion and behavioral risk reduction: a meta-analysis of 75 randomized controlled trials 1988–2007. Prev Med. 2008; 47:3–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Lustria MLA, Noar SM, Cortese J, Van Stee SK, Glueckauf RL, Lee J. A meta-analysis of web-delivered tailored health behavior change interventions. J Health Commun. 2013; 18(9):1039–69.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Park EJ, McDaniel A, Jung MS. Computerized tailoring of health information. Comput Inf Nursing: CIN. 2009; 27:34–43.CrossRef
18.
19.
Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, et al. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; 3(3):CD005470.
20.
Heather C, Grimshaw J, Wensing M. Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice In: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID, editors. 2nd ed. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons: 2013.
21.
Parkes J, Abercrombie S, McCarty T. Feedback sandwiches affect perceptions but not performance. Adv Health Sci Educ: Theory Pract. 2013; 18(3):397–407.CrossRef
22.
Landis Lewis Z, Mello-Thoms C, Gadabu OJ, Gillespie EM, Douglas GP, Crowley RS. The feasibility of automating audit and feedback for ART guideline adherence in Malawi. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011; 18(6):868–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
24.
Anseel F, Beatty AS, Shen W, Lievens F, Sackett PR. How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior. J Manag. 2015; 41(1):318–48.
25.
Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, Anandan C, Cresswell K, Bokun T, et al. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med. 2011; 8:e1000387.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Wright A, Henkin S, Feblowitz J, McCoy AB, Bates DW, Sittig DF. Early results of the meaningful use program for electronic health records. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368(8):779–80.CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
Weiner MG, Embi PJ. Toward reuse of clinical data for research and quality improvement: the end of the beginning?. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(5):359–60.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Powell A, Davies H, Thomson R. Using routine comparative data to assess the quality of health care: understanding and avoiding common pitfalls. Qual Safety Health Care. 2003; 12(2):122–8.CrossRef
30.
Hersh WR, Weiner MG, Embi PJ, Logan JR, Payne PRO, Bernstam EV, et al. Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research. Med Care. 2013; 51(8 Suppl 3):S30–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Hripcsak G, Albers DJ. Next-generation phenotyping of electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; 20(1):117–21.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Ivers NM, Tu K, Young J, Francis JJ, Barnsley J, Shah BR, et al. Feedback GAP: pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial of goal setting and action plans to increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions in primary care. Implementation Sci: IS. 2013; 8:142.CrossRefPubMedCentral
33.
Chalouhi GE, Salomon LJ, Fontanges M, Althuser M, Haddad G, Scemama O, et al. Formative assessment based on an audit and feedback improves nuchal translucency ultrasound image quality. J Ultrasound Med: Official J Am Institute Ultrasound Med. 2013; 32(9):1601–5.CrossRef
34.
Simunovic M, Coates A, Smith A, Thabane L, Goldsmith CH, Levine MN. Uptake of an innovation in surgery: observations from the cluster-randomized quality initiative in rectal cancer trial. Can J Surg J Can de chirurgie. 2013; 56(6):415–421.CrossRef
35.
36.
Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Flottorp S. The OFF theory of research utilization. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58(2):113–116.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N. Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58(2):107–12.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Grol RPTM, Bosch MC, Hulscher MEJL, Eccles MP, Wensing M. Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q. 2007; 85:93–138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Safety Health Care. 2005; 14:26–33.CrossRef
40.
Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implementation Sci. 2012; 7:37.CrossRef
41.
Colquhoun HL, Brehaut JC, Sales A, Ivers N, Grimshaw J, Michie S, et al. A systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback. Implementation Sci. 2013; 8:66.CrossRef
42.
Michie S, Stralen MMv, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Sci. 2011; 6:42.CrossRef
43.
Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977; 84(2):191–215.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Vicente KJ. Cognitive work analysis: toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1999.
45.
Ilgen DR, Fisher CD, Taylor MS. Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J Appl Psychol. 1979; 64(4):349–71.CrossRef
46.
Eva KW, Armson H, Holmboe E, Lockyer J, Loney E, Mann K, et al. Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: on the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2012; 17:15–26.CrossRef
47.
WHO. WHO Global Strategy for Containment of Antimicrobial Resistance. Tech. rep. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland; 2001. http://​www.​who.​int/​csr/​resources/​publications/​drugresist/​WHO_​CDS_​CSR_​DRS_​2001_​2_​EN/​en/​.
48.
Silver WS, Mitchell TR, Gist ME. Responses to successful and unsuccessful performance: the moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between performance and attributions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1995; 62(3):286–99.CrossRef
49.
Bandura A. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educ Psychologist. 1993; 28(2):117–48.CrossRef
50.
Bandura A, Jourden FJ. Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social comparison on complex decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991; 60(6):941–51.CrossRef
51.
Kiefe CI, Allison JJ, Williams O, Person SD, Weaver MT, Weissman NW. Improving quality improvement using achievable benchmarks for physician feedback: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001; 285(22):2871–9.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Gerber JS, Prasad PA, Fiks AG, Localio AR, Grundmeier RW, Bell LM, et al. Effect of an outpatient antimicrobial stewardship intervention on broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by primary care pediatricians: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2013; 309(22):2345–52.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Colquhoun H, Leeman J, Michie S, Lokker C, Bragge P, Hempel S, et al. Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. Implementation Sci. 2014; 9:51.
54.
Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, et al. Expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study. Implementation Sci. 2014; 9:39.CrossRef
55.
56.
57.
Narayanan S, Manchanda P, Chintagunta PK. The informative versus persuasive role of marketing communication in new product categories: an application to the prescription antihistamines market. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 472881. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2003.
58.
Scheuer O, Loll F, Pinkwart N, McLaren BM. Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Int J Computer-Supported Collaborative Learn. 2010; 5:43–102.CrossRef
59.
Walker E, Ogan A, Aleven V, Jones C. Two approaches for providing adaptive support for discussion in an ill-defined domain. Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Ill-Defined Domains: Assessment and Feedback in Ill-Defined Domains; 2008, p. 1.
60.
Diamant EI, Lim BY, Echenique A, Leshed G, Fussell SR. Supporting intercultural collaboration with dynamic feedback systems: preliminary evidence from a creative design task. In: CHI ’09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI ’09. New York, NY, USA: ACM: 2009. p. 3997–4002.
61.
Leshed G, Perez D, Hancock JT, Cosley D, Birnholtz J, Lee S, et al. Visualizing real-time language-based feedback on teamwork behavior in computer-mediated groups. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems CHI ’09. New York, NY, USA: ACM: 2009. p. 537–546.
62.
Gutierrez F, Atkinson J. Adaptive feedback selection for intelligent tutoring systems. Expert Syst Appl. 2011; 38(5):6146–52.CrossRef
63.
Ogan A, Walker E, Aleven V, Jones C. Using a peer moderator to support collaborative cultural discussion. In: CATS 2008: Workshop on culturally-aware tutoring systems: 2008. p. 71.
64.
Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2013; 46:81–95.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Computer-supported feedback message tailoring: theory-informed adaptation of clinical audit and feedback for learning and behavior change
Authors
Zach Landis-Lewis
Jamie C Brehaut
Harry Hochheiser
Gerald P Douglas
Rebecca S Jacobson
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0203-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Implementation Science 1/2015 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of knowledge transfer and behavior modification interventions in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients—the INDICA study: a cluster randomized controlled trial

Research

Characterising an implementation intervention in terms of behaviour change techniques and theory: the ‘Sepsis Six’ clinical care bundle

Research

Implementation challenges and successes of a population-based colorectal cancer screening program: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives

Study protocol

Bridging the Gap: using an interrupted time series design to evaluate systems reform addressing refugee maternal and child health inequalities

Erratum

Erratum to: A cluster randomized trial of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention in Brazilian intensive care units: study protocol

Debate

“Entrenched practices and other biases”: unpacking the historical, economic, professional, and social resistance to de-implementation