16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What motivates general practitioners to change practice behaviour? A qualitative study of audit and feedback group sessions in Dutch general practice

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Adopting an attributional perspective, the current article investigates how audit and feedback group sessions contribute to general practitioners’ (GPs) motivation to change their practice behaviour to improve care. We focus on the contributions of the audit and feedback itself (content) and the group discussion (process).

          Methods

          Four focus groups, comprising a total of 39 participating Dutch GPs, discussed and compared audit and feedback of their practices. The focus groups were analysed thematically.

          Results

          Audit and feedback contributed to GPs’ motivation to change in two ways: by raising awareness about aspects of their current care practice and by providing indications of the possible impact of change. For these contributions to play out, the audit and feedback should be reliable and valid, specific, recent and recurrent and concern GPs’ own practices or practices within their own influence sphere. Care behaviour attributed to external, uncontrollable or unstable causes would not induce change. The added value of the group is twofold as well: group discussion contributed to GPs’ motivation to change by providing a frame of reference and by affording insights that participants would not have been able to achieve on their own.

          Conclusions

          In audit and feedback group sessions, both audit and feedback information and group discussion can valuably contribute to GPs’ motivation to change care practice behaviour. Peer interaction can positively contribute to explore alternative practices and avenues for improvement. Local or regional peer meetings would be beneficial in facilitating reflection and discussion. An important avenue for future studies is to explore the contribution of audit and feedback and small-group discussion to actual practice change.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Developing sustainable feedback practices

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

              Audit and feedback continues to be widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice. It appears logical that healthcare professionals would be prompted to modify their practice if given feedback that their clinical practice was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines. Yet, audit and feedback has not consistently been found to be effective. To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register and pending file up to January 2004. Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. For each comparison we calculated the risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR), adjusted for baseline compliance when possible, for dichotomous outcomes and the percentage and the percent change relative to the control group average after the intervention, adjusted for baseline performance when possible, for continuous outcomes. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: the type of intervention (audit and feedback alone, audit and feedback with educational meetings, or multifaceted interventions that included audit and feedback), the intensity of the audit and feedback, the complexity of the targeted behaviour, the seriousness of the outcome, baseline compliance and study quality. Thirty new studies were added to this update, and a total of 118 studies are included. In the primary analysis 88 comparisons from 72 studies were included that compared any intervention in which audit and feedback is a component compared to no intervention. For dichotomous outcomes the adjusted risk difference of compliance with desired practice varied from - 0.16 (a 16 % absolute decrease in compliance) to 0.70 (a 70% increase in compliance) (median = 0.05, inter-quartile range = 0.03 to 0.11) and the adjusted risk ratio varied from 0.71 to 18.3 (median = 1.08, inter-quartile range = 0.99 to 1.30). For continuous outcomes the adjusted percent change relative to control varied from -0.10 (a 10 % absolute decrease in compliance) to 0.68 (a 68% increase in compliance) (median = 0.16, inter-quartile range = 0.05 to 0.37). Low baseline compliance with recommended practice and higher intensity of audit and feedback were associated with larger adjusted risk ratios (greater effectiveness) across studies. Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. When it is effective, the effects are generally small to moderate. The relative effectiveness of audit and feedback is likely to be greater when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low and when feedback is delivered more intensively.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2019
                1 June 2019
                : 9
                : 5
                : e025286
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentGeneral Practice , Erasmus Medical Centre , Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ] departmentGeneral Practice , Amsterdam University Medical Centre , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [3 ] General Practitioners Holtrop and Sieben , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [4 ] Ubbens and Statius Muller General Practitioners , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Marije van Braak; m.vanbraak@ 123456erasmusmc.nl
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2938-1508
                Article
                bmjopen-2018-025286
                10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025286
                6549704
                31154299
                6323b687-c223-4e0e-a5ba-42f076d65136
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 07 July 2018
                : 27 March 2019
                : 28 March 2019
                Categories
                General practice / Family practice
                Research
                1506
                1696
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                primary care,qualitative research
                Medicine
                primary care, qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article