Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Feb 3:16:59.
doi: 10.1186/s12879-016-1362-0.

Monitoring patient care through health facility exit interviews: an assessment of the Hawthorne effect in a trial of adherence to malaria treatment guidelines in Tanzania

Baptiste Leurent  1 , Hugh Reyburn  2 , Florida Muro  3 , Hilda Mbakilwa  3 , David Schellenberg  2
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Monitoring patient care through health facility exit interviews: an assessment of the Hawthorne effect in a trial of adherence to malaria treatment guidelines in Tanzania

Baptiste Leurent et al. BMC Infect Dis. .

Abstract

Background: Survey of patients exiting health facilities is a common way to assess consultation practices. It is, however, unclear to what extent health professionals may change their practices when they are aware of such interviews taking place, possibly paying more attention to following recommended practices. This so-called Hawthorne effect could have important consequences for interpreting research and programme monitoring, but has rarely been assessed.

Methods: A three-arm cluster-randomised trial of interventions to improve adherence to guidelines for the use of anti-malarial drugs was conducted in Tanzania. Patient interviews were conducted outside health facilities on two randomly-selected days per week. Health workers also routinely documented consultations in their ledgers. The Hawthorne effect was investigated by comparing routine data according to whether exit interviews had been conducted on three key indicators of malaria care. Adjusted logistic mixed-effects models were used, taking into account the dependencies within health facilities and calendar days.

Results: Routine data were collected on 19,579 consultations in 18 facilities. The odds of having a malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) result reported were 11 % higher on days when exit surveys were conducted (adjusted odds ratio 95 % CI: 0.98-1.26, p = 0.097), 17 % lower for prescribing an anti-malarial drug to patients with a negative RDT result (0.56-1.23, p = 0.343), and 27 % lower for prescribing an anti-malarial when no RDT result was reported (0.53-1.00, p = 0.052). The effect varied with time, with a U-shaped association over the study period (p < 0.001). We also observed a higher number of consultations recorded on days when exit-interviews were conducted (adjusted mean difference = 2.03, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Although modest, there was some suggestion of better practice by health professionals on days when exit interviews were conducted. Researchers should be aware of the potential Hawthorne effect, and take into account assessment methods when generalising findings to the 'real word' setting. This effect is, however, likely to be context dependent, and further controlled evaluation across different settings should be conducted.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01292707 . Registered on 29th January 2011.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Hawthorne effect on reporting a RDT result, by study period. Odds ratio of reporting a RDT result for survey days compared to non-survey days. Estimates from a three-level hierarchical model (with health facility and calendar day as random effects) adjusted for day of the week, and stratified by study period. RDT = Rapid diagnostic test, CI Confidence Interval
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Gillespie R. Manufacturing knowledge: a history of the Hawthorne experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
    1. Roethlisberger FJ, Dickson WJ. Management and the Worker Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1939.
    1. Kompier MAJ. The “Hawthorne effect” is a myth, but what keeps the story going? Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32(5):402–12. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1036. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Levitt SD, List JA. Was there really a hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne Plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments. Am Econ J Appl Econ. 2011;3(1):224–38. doi: 10.1257/app.3.1.224. - DOI
    1. McCambridge J, Kypri K, Elbourne D. Research participation effects: a skeleton in the methodological cupboard. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(8):845–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.002. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data