↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
46 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1769 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1610 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000259.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noah Ivers, Gro Jamtvedt, Signe Flottorp, Jane M Young, Jan Odgaard-Jensen, Simon D French, Mary Ann O'Brien, Marit Johansen, Jeremy Grimshaw, Andrew D Oxman

Abstract

Audit and feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice either on its own or as a component of multifaceted quality improvement interventions. This is based on the belief that healthcare professionals are prompted to modify their practice when given performance feedback showing that their clinical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target. Despite its prevalence as a quality improvement strategy, there remains uncertainty regarding both the effectiveness of audit and feedback in improving healthcare practice and the characteristics of audit and feedback that lead to greater impact.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,610 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 16 <1%
United States 12 <1%
Canada 10 <1%
South Africa 5 <1%
Australia 4 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Ireland 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Indonesia 2 <1%
Other 8 <1%
Unknown 1546 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 299 19%
Researcher 245 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 207 13%
Student > Bachelor 137 9%
Student > Postgraduate 124 8%
Other 404 25%
Unknown 194 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 680 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 190 12%
Social Sciences 114 7%
Psychology 94 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 42 3%
Other 214 13%
Unknown 276 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2021.
All research outputs
#439,816
of 17,994,434 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#964
of 11,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,450
of 136,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,994,434 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 136,153 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.