Archived Comments for:
Study protocol: Cost effectiveness of two strategies to implement the NVOG guidelines on hypertension in pregnancy: An innovative strategy including a computerised decision support system compared to a common strategy of professional audit and feedback, a randomized controlled trial
More details about the audit and feedback system, please.
Sylvia Hysong, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center
27 April 2011
The authors present an interesting protocol; and although the intervention of interest is the decision support system, not the audit
and feedback (since it is being used as a control), research shows that how feedback is delivered greatly affects how effective it is (see for example, Hysong, 2009; Jamtvedt et al., 2006, Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). What data will be presented to participants? Verbally or in writing? How often? Will suggestions for improvement be provided? Details like this have an impact on how effective the feedback is, and are needed in the protocol in order to determine how strong of a control "intervention" the authors have designed (see Michie et al. 2009).
References:
Hysong, S. J. (2009). Meta-Analysis: Audit & Feedback Features Impact
Effectiveness on Care Quality. Medical Care, 47, 356-363.
Jamtvedt, G., Young, J. M., Kristoffersen, D. T., O'Brien, M. A., &
Oxman, A. D. (2006). Audit and feedback: effects on professional
practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.,
CD000259.
Kluger, A. N. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions
on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary
feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
Susan Michie, Dean Fixsen, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Martin P Eccles (2009).
Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the
need for a scientific method.
Implementation Science 2009, 4:40 (16 July 2009)
Implementation Science
More details about the audit and feedback system, please.
27 April 2011
The authors present an interesting protocol; and although the intervention of interest is the decision support system, not the audit
and feedback (since it is being used as a control), research shows that how feedback is delivered greatly affects how effective it is (see for example, Hysong, 2009; Jamtvedt et al., 2006, Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). What data will be presented to participants? Verbally or in writing? How often? Will suggestions for improvement be provided? Details like this have an impact on how effective the feedback is, and are needed in the protocol in order to determine how strong of a control "intervention" the authors have designed (see Michie et al. 2009).
References:
Hysong, S. J. (2009). Meta-Analysis: Audit & Feedback Features Impact
Effectiveness on Care Quality. Medical Care, 47, 356-363.
Jamtvedt, G., Young, J. M., Kristoffersen, D. T., O'Brien, M. A., &
Oxman, A. D. (2006). Audit and feedback: effects on professional
practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.,
CD000259.
Kluger, A. N. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions
on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary
feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
Susan Michie, Dean Fixsen, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Martin P Eccles (2009).
Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the
need for a scientific method.
Implementation Science 2009, 4:40 (16 July 2009)
Competing interests
Author of one of the cited references