PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Policymakers and researchers recommend supporting the capabilities of feedback recipients to increase the quality of care. There are different ways to support capabilities. We aimed to describe the content and delivery of feedback facilitation interventions delivered alongside audit and feedback within randomised controlled trials.
METHODS: We included papers describing feedback facilitation identified by the latest Cochrane review of audit and feedback. The piloted extraction proforma was based upon a framework to describe intervention content, with additional prompts relating to the identification of influences, selection of improvement actions and consideration of priorities and implications. We describe the content and delivery graphically, statistically and narratively.
RESULTS: We reviewed 146 papers describing 104 feedback facilitation interventions. Across included studies, feedback facilitation contained 26 different implementation strategies. There was a median of three implementation strategies per intervention and evidence that the number of strategies per intervention is increasing. Theory was used in 35 trials, although the precise role of theory was poorly described. Ten studies provided a logic model and six of these described their mechanisms of action. Both the exploration of influences and the selection of improvement actions were described in 46 of the feedback facilitation interventions; we describe who undertook this tailoring work. Exploring dose, there was large variation in duration (15-1800 min), frequency (1 to 42 times) and number of recipients per site (1 to 135). There were important gaps in reporting, but some evidence that reporting is improving over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in the design of feedback facilitation needs to be considered when assessing the intervention\'s effectiveness. We describe explicit feedback facilitation choices for future intervention developers based upon choices made to date. We found the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to be valuable when describing intervention components, with the potential for some minor clarifications in terms and for greater specificity by intervention providers. Reporting demonstrated extensive gaps which hinder both replication and learning. Feedback facilitation providers are recommended to close reporting gaps that hinder replication. Future work should seek to address the \'opportunity\' for improvement activity, defined as factors that lie outside the individual that make care or improvement behaviour possible.
BACKGROUND: The study protocol was published at: https://www.protocols.io/private/4DA5DE33B68E11ED9EF70A58A9FEAC02 .
METHODS: We included papers describing feedback facilitation identified by the latest Cochrane review of audit and feedback. The piloted extraction proforma was based upon a framework to describe intervention content, with additional prompts relating to the identification of influences, selection of improvement actions and consideration of priorities and implications. We describe the content and delivery graphically, statistically and narratively.
RESULTS: We reviewed 146 papers describing 104 feedback facilitation interventions. Across included studies, feedback facilitation contained 26 different implementation strategies. There was a median of three implementation strategies per intervention and evidence that the number of strategies per intervention is increasing. Theory was used in 35 trials, although the precise role of theory was poorly described. Ten studies provided a logic model and six of these described their mechanisms of action. Both the exploration of influences and the selection of improvement actions were described in 46 of the feedback facilitation interventions; we describe who undertook this tailoring work. Exploring dose, there was large variation in duration (15-1800 min), frequency (1 to 42 times) and number of recipients per site (1 to 135). There were important gaps in reporting, but some evidence that reporting is improving over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in the design of feedback facilitation needs to be considered when assessing the intervention\'s effectiveness. We describe explicit feedback facilitation choices for future intervention developers based upon choices made to date. We found the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to be valuable when describing intervention components, with the potential for some minor clarifications in terms and for greater specificity by intervention providers. Reporting demonstrated extensive gaps which hinder both replication and learning. Feedback facilitation providers are recommended to close reporting gaps that hinder replication. Future work should seek to address the \'opportunity\' for improvement activity, defined as factors that lie outside the individual that make care or improvement behaviour possible.
BACKGROUND: The study protocol was published at: https://www.protocols.io/private/4DA5DE33B68E11ED9EF70A58A9FEAC02 .
摘要：
背景：政策制定者和研究人员建议支持反馈接受者的能力，以提高护理质量。有不同的方法来支持能力。我们旨在描述随机对照试验中与审核和反馈一起提供的反馈促进干预措施的内容和交付。
方法：我们包含了描述最新的Cochrane审核和反馈审查所确定的反馈促进的论文。试点提取形式基于一个描述干预内容的框架，与识别影响有关的额外提示，选择改进行动，考虑优先事项和影响。我们以图形方式描述内容和交付，统计和叙述。
结果：我们回顾了146篇论文，描述了104种反馈促进干预措施。在纳入的研究中，反馈促进包含26种不同的实施策略。每个干预措施有三个实施策略的中位数，并且有证据表明每个干预措施的策略数量正在增加。理论在35个试验中使用，尽管理论的确切作用描述不佳。十项研究提供了逻辑模型，其中六项描述了它们的作用机制。在46种反馈促进干预措施中描述了影响的探索和改进措施的选择；我们描述了谁进行了这项剪裁工作。探索剂量，持续时间有很大的变化(15-1800分钟)，频率（1至42次）和每个站点的收件人数量（1至135）。报告方面存在重要差距，但是一些证据表明报告随着时间的推移正在改善。
结论：在评估干预效果时，需要考虑反馈促进设计中的异质性。我们根据迄今为止做出的选择，为未来的干预开发人员描述了明确的反馈促进选择。我们发现，在描述干预组件时，实施变革的专家建议很有价值。有可能对术语进行一些轻微的澄清，并由干预提供者提供更多的特异性。报告显示出巨大的差距，阻碍了复制和学习。建议反馈促进提供者缩小阻碍复制的报告差距。未来的工作应寻求解决改进活动的“机会”，定义为个人之外的因素，使护理或改善行为成为可能。
背景：研究协议发表在：https://www。protocols.io/private/4DA5DE33B68E11ED9EF70A58A9FEAC02.
方法：我们包含了描述最新的Cochrane审核和反馈审查所确定的反馈促进的论文。试点提取形式基于一个描述干预内容的框架，与识别影响有关的额外提示，选择改进行动，考虑优先事项和影响。我们以图形方式描述内容和交付，统计和叙述。
结果：我们回顾了146篇论文，描述了104种反馈促进干预措施。在纳入的研究中，反馈促进包含26种不同的实施策略。每个干预措施有三个实施策略的中位数，并且有证据表明每个干预措施的策略数量正在增加。理论在35个试验中使用，尽管理论的确切作用描述不佳。十项研究提供了逻辑模型，其中六项描述了它们的作用机制。在46种反馈促进干预措施中描述了影响的探索和改进措施的选择；我们描述了谁进行了这项剪裁工作。探索剂量，持续时间有很大的变化(15-1800分钟)，频率（1至42次）和每个站点的收件人数量（1至135）。报告方面存在重要差距，但是一些证据表明报告随着时间的推移正在改善。
结论：在评估干预效果时，需要考虑反馈促进设计中的异质性。我们根据迄今为止做出的选择，为未来的干预开发人员描述了明确的反馈促进选择。我们发现，在描述干预组件时，实施变革的专家建议很有价值。有可能对术语进行一些轻微的澄清，并由干预提供者提供更多的特异性。报告显示出巨大的差距，阻碍了复制和学习。建议反馈促进提供者缩小阻碍复制的报告差距。未来的工作应寻求解决改进活动的“机会”，定义为个人之外的因素，使护理或改善行为成为可能。
背景：研究协议发表在：https://www。protocols.io/private/4DA5DE33B68E11ED9EF70A58A9FEAC02.
