schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

A systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback

Doc number: 66 Abstract Background: Audit and feedback is one of the most widely used and promising interventions in implementation research, yet also one of the most variably effective. Understanding this variability has been limited in part by lack of attention to the theoretical and conceptual ba... Full description

Journal Title: Implementation Science 2013, Vol.8, p.66
Main Author: Colquhoun, Heather
Other Authors: Brehaut, Jamie , Sales, Anne , Ivers, Noah , Grimshaw, Jeremy , Michie, Susan , Carroll, Kelly , Chalifoux, Mathieu , Eva, Kevin
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
ID: DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-66
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: proquest1399186994
title: A systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback
format: Article
creator:
  • Colquhoun, Heather
  • Brehaut, Jamie
  • Sales, Anne
  • Ivers, Noah
  • Grimshaw, Jeremy
  • Michie, Susan
  • Carroll, Kelly
  • Chalifoux, Mathieu
  • Eva, Kevin
subjects:
  • Diffusion of Innovation–Methods
  • Feedback–Methods
  • Humans–Methods
  • Medical Audit–Methods
  • Observer Variation–Methods
  • Randomized Controlled Trials As Topic–Methods
  • Research Design–Methods
ispartof: Implementation Science, 2013, Vol.8, p.66
description: Doc number: 66 Abstract Background: Audit and feedback is one of the most widely used and promising interventions in implementation research, yet also one of the most variably effective. Understanding this variability has been limited in part by lack of attention to the theoretical and conceptual basis underlying audit and feedback. Examining the extent of theory use in studies of audit and feedback will yield better understanding of the causal pathways of audit and feedback effectiveness and inform efforts to optimize this important intervention. Methods: A total of 140 studies in the 2012 Cochrane update on audit and feedback interventions were independently reviewed by two investigators. Variables were extracted related to theory use in the study design, measurement, implementation or interpretation. Theory name, associated reference, and the location of theory use as reported in the study were extracted. Theories were organized by type ( e.g ., education, diffusion, organization, psychology), and theory utilization was classified into seven categories (justification, intervention design, pilot testing, evaluation, predictions, post hoc, other). Results: A total of 20 studies (14%) reported use of theory in any aspect of the study design, measurement, implementation or interpretation. In only 13 studies (9%) was a theory reportedly used to inform development of the intervention. A total of 18 different theories across educational, psychological, organizational and diffusion of innovation perspectives were identified. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations and Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory were the most widely used (3.6% and 3%, respectively). Conclusions: The explicit use of theory in studies of audit and feedback was rare. A range of theories was found, but not consistency of theory use. Advancing our understanding of audit and feedback will require more attention to theoretically informed studies and intervention design.
language: eng
source:
identifier: DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-66
fulltext: fulltext_linktorsrc
url: Link


@attributes
ID1041022804
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordid1399186994
sourceidproquest
recordidTN_proquest1399186994
sourcesystemOther
pqid1399186994
galeid534711195
display
typearticle
titleA systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback
creatorColquhoun, Heather ; Brehaut, Jamie ; Sales, Anne ; Ivers, Noah ; Grimshaw, Jeremy ; Michie, Susan ; Carroll, Kelly ; Chalifoux, Mathieu ; Eva, Kevin
ispartofImplementation Science, 2013, Vol.8, p.66
identifierDOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-66
subjectDiffusion of Innovation–Methods ; Feedback–Methods ; Humans–Methods ; Medical Audit–Methods ; Observer Variation–Methods ; Randomized Controlled Trials As Topic–Methods ; Research Design–Methods
descriptionDoc number: 66 Abstract Background: Audit and feedback is one of the most widely used and promising interventions in implementation research, yet also one of the most variably effective. Understanding this variability has been limited in part by lack of attention to the theoretical and conceptual basis underlying audit and feedback. Examining the extent of theory use in studies of audit and feedback will yield better understanding of the causal pathways of audit and feedback effectiveness and inform efforts to optimize this important intervention. Methods: A total of 140 studies in the 2012 Cochrane update on audit and feedback interventions were independently reviewed by two investigators. Variables were extracted related to theory use in the study design, measurement, implementation or interpretation. Theory name, associated reference, and the location of theory use as reported in the study were extracted. Theories were organized by type ( e.g ., education, diffusion, organization, psychology), and theory utilization was classified into seven categories (justification, intervention design, pilot testing, evaluation, predictions, post hoc, other). Results: A total of 20 studies (14%) reported use of theory in any aspect of the study design, measurement, implementation or interpretation. In only 13 studies (9%) was a theory reportedly used to inform development of the intervention. A total of 18 different theories across educational, psychological, organizational and diffusion of innovation perspectives were identified. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations and Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory were the most widely used (3.6% and 3%, respectively). Conclusions: The explicit use of theory in studies of audit and feedback was rare. A range of theories was found, but not consistency of theory use. Advancing our understanding of audit and feedback will require more attention to theoretically informed studies and intervention design.
languageeng
source
version6
oafree_for_read
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
linktorsrc$$Uhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/1399186994/?pq-origsite=primo$$EView_record_in_ProQuest_(subscribers_only)
search
creatorcontrib
0Colquhoun, Heather
1Brehaut, Jamie
2Sales, Anne
3Ivers, Noah
4Grimshaw, Jeremy
5Michie, Susan
6Carroll, Kelly
7Chalifoux, Mathieu
8Eva, Kevin
titleA systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback
descriptionDoc number: 66 Abstract Background: Audit and feedback is one of the most widely used and promising interventions in implementation research, yet also one of the most variably effective. Understanding this variability has been limited in part by lack of attention to the theoretical and conceptual basis underlying audit and feedback. Examining the extent of theory use in studies of audit and feedback will yield better understanding of the causal pathways of audit and feedback effectiveness and inform efforts to optimize this important intervention. Methods: A total of 140 studies in the 2012 Cochrane update on audit and feedback interventions were independently reviewed by two investigators. Variables were extracted related to theory use in the study design, measurement, implementation or interpretation. Theory name, associated reference, and the location of theory use as reported in the study were extracted. Theories were organized by type ( e.g ., education, diffusion, organization, psychology), and theory utilization was classified into seven categories (justification, intervention design, pilot testing, evaluation, predictions, post hoc, other). Results: A total of 20 studies (14%) reported use of theory in any aspect of the study design, measurement, implementation or interpretation. In only 13 studies (9%) was a theory reportedly used to inform development of the intervention. A total of 18 different theories across educational, psychological, organizational and diffusion of innovation perspectives were identified. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations and Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory were the most widely used (3.6% and 3%, respectively). Conclusions: The explicit use of theory in studies of audit and feedback was rare. A range of theories was found, but not consistency of theory use. Advancing our understanding of audit and feedback will require more attention to theoretically informed studies and intervention design.
subject
0Diffusion of Innovation–Methods
1Feedback–Methods
2Humans–Methods
3Medical Audit–Methods
4Observer Variation–Methods
5Randomized Controlled Trials As Topic–Methods
6Research Design–Methods
general
0English
1BioMed Central
210.1186/1748-5908-8-66
3Medical Database
4Health & Medical Collection (Alumni edition)
5Medical Database (Alumni edition)
6Health & Medical Collection
7Publicly Available Content Database
8ProQuest Central
9ProQuest Hospital Collection
10Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni edition)
11ProQuest Health & Medical Complete
12ProQuest Medical Library
13ProQuest Central (new)
14ProQuest Central Korea
15Health Research Premium Collection
16Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni edition)
17ProQuest Central Essentials
18ProQuest Central China
sourceidproquest
recordidproquest1399186994
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2013
addtitleImplementation Science
searchscope
01000273
11006761
21006762
31007067
41007945
51008886
61009127
71009240
81009386
910000039
1010000047
1110000118
1210000119
1310000155
1410000156
1510000157
1610000158
1710000255
1810000256
1910000258
2010000270
2110000271
2210000281
2310000300
2410000302
25proquest
scope
01000273
11006761
21006762
31007067
41007945
51008886
61009127
71009240
81009386
910000039
1010000047
1110000118
1210000119
1310000155
1410000156
1510000157
1610000158
1710000255
1810000256
1910000258
2010000270
2110000271
2210000281
2310000300
2410000302
25proquest
lsr43
01000273true
11006761true
21006762true
31007067true
41007945true
51008886true
61009127true
71009240true
81009386true
910000039true
1010000047true
1110000118true
1210000119true
1310000155true
1410000156true
1510000157true
1610000158true
1710000255true
1810000256true
1910000258true
2010000270true
2110000271true
2210000281true
2310000300true
2410000302true
startdate20130101
enddate20130101
citationpf 66 vol 8
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[issue, galeid, issn, date, eissn, pqid]
sort
titleA systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback
authorColquhoun, Heather ; Brehaut, Jamie ; Sales, Anne ; Ivers, Noah ; Grimshaw, Jeremy ; Michie, Susan ; Carroll, Kelly ; Chalifoux, Mathieu ; Eva, Kevin
creationdate20130101
lso0120130101
facets
frbrgroupid3287882170447564071
frbrtype5
languageeng
creationdate2013
topic
0Diffusion of Innovation–Methods
1Feedback–Methods
2Humans–Methods
3Medical Audit–Methods
4Observer Variation–Methods
5Randomized Controlled Trials As Topic–Methods
6Research Design–Methods
collection
0Medical Database
1Health & Medical Collection (Alumni edition)
2Medical Database (Alumni edition)
3Health & Medical Collection
4Publicly Available Content Database
5ProQuest Central
6ProQuest Hospital Collection
7Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni edition)
8ProQuest Health & Medical Complete
9ProQuest Medical Library
10ProQuest Central (new)
11ProQuest Central Korea
12Health Research Premium Collection
13Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni edition)
14ProQuest Central Essentials
15ProQuest Central China
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Colquhoun, Heather
1Brehaut, Jamie
2Sales, Anne
3Ivers, Noah
4Grimshaw, Jeremy
5Michie, Susan
6Carroll, Kelly
7Chalifoux, Mathieu
8Eva, Kevin
jtitleImplementation Science
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext_linktorsrc
addata
aulast
0Colquhoun
1Brehaut
2Sales
3Ivers
4Grimshaw
5Michie
6Carroll
7Chalifoux
8Eva
aufirst
0Heather
1Jamie
2Anne
3Noah
4Jeremy
5Susan
6Kelly
7Mathieu
8Kevin
auinit1
0H.
1J.
2A.
3N.
4S.
5K.
6M.
au
0Colquhoun, Heather
1Brehaut, Jamie
2Sales, Anne
3Ivers, Noah
4Grimshaw, Jeremy
5Michie, Susan
6Carroll, Kelly
7Chalifoux, Mathieu
8Eva, Kevin
atitleA systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback
jtitleImplementation Science
risdate20130101
volume8
spage66
pages66
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstractDoc number: 66 Abstract Background: Audit and feedback is one of the most widely used and promising interventions in implementation research, yet also one of the most variably effective. Understanding this variability has been limited in part by lack of attention to the theoretical and conceptual basis underlying audit and feedback. Examining the extent of theory use in studies of audit and feedback will yield better understanding of the causal pathways of audit and feedback effectiveness and inform efforts to optimize this important intervention. Methods: A total of 140 studies in the 2012 Cochrane update on audit and feedback interventions were independently reviewed by two investigators. Variables were extracted related to theory use in the study design, measurement, implementation or interpretation. Theory name, associated reference, and the location of theory use as reported in the study were extracted. Theories were organized by type ( e.g ., education, diffusion, organization, psychology), and theory utilization was classified into seven categories (justification, intervention design, pilot testing, evaluation, predictions, post hoc, other). Results: A total of 20 studies (14%) reported use of theory in any aspect of the study design, measurement, implementation or interpretation. In only 13 studies (9%) was a theory reportedly used to inform development of the intervention. A total of 18 different theories across educational, psychological, organizational and diffusion of innovation perspectives were identified. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations and Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory were the most widely used (3.6% and 3%, respectively). Conclusions: The explicit use of theory in studies of audit and feedback was rare. A range of theories was found, but not consistency of theory use. Advancing our understanding of audit and feedback will require more attention to theoretically informed studies and intervention design.
copLondon
pubBioMed Central
doi10.1186/1748-5908-8-66
urlhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/1399186994/
issue1
issn17485908
eissn17485908
oafree_for_read
date2013-06-10