| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 15 | 31% |
| United Kingdom | 13 | 27% |
| United States | 3 | 6% |
| Ireland | 2 | 4% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| Iraq | 1 | 2% |
| Korea, Democratic People's Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 12 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 63% |
| Scientists | 10 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,106 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% |
| Indonesia | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Ireland | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | <1% |
| Unknown | 2042 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 353 | 17% |
| Researcher | 288 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 233 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 171 | 8% |
| Other | 139 | 7% |
| Other | 485 | 23% |
| Unknown | 437 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 757 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 256 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 124 | 6% |
| Psychology | 106 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 52 | 2% |
| Other | 277 | 13% |
| Unknown | 534 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. 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 18 February 2024.
All research outputs
#554,739
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#975
of 13,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,653
of 182,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 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 13,149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 182,974 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 183 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 95% of its contemporaries.