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
. 2020 Feb 25:1:33.
doi: 10.1186/s43058-020-00019-3. eCollection 2020.

A multiple-behaviour investigation of goal prioritisation in physicians receiving audit and feedback to address high-risk prescribing in nursing homes

Nicola McCleary  1   2 , Laura Desveaux  3   4   5 , Catherine Reis  4 , Stefanie Linklater  1 , Holly O Witteman  1   6   7 , Monica Taljaard  1   2 , Kednapa Thavorn  1   2 , Jeremy M Grimshaw  1   8 , Noah M Ivers  3   4   5   9   10 , Justin Presseau  1   2   11
Affiliations

A multiple-behaviour investigation of goal prioritisation in physicians receiving audit and feedback to address high-risk prescribing in nursing homes

Nicola McCleary et al. Implement Sci Commun. .

Abstract

Background: As part of their professional role, healthcare providers enact multiple competing goal-directed behaviours in time-constrained environments. Better understanding healthcare providers' motivation to engage in the pursuit of particular goals may help inform the development of implementation interventions. We investigated healthcare providers' pursuit of multiple goals as part of a trial evaluating the effectiveness of an audit and feedback intervention in supporting appropriate adjustment of high-risk medication prescribing by physicians working in nursing homes. Our objectives were to determine whether goal priority and constructs from Social Cognitive Theory (self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and descriptive norms) predicted intention to adjust prescribing of multiple high-risk medications and to investigate how physicians in nursing homes prioritise their goals related to high-risk medication prescribing.

Methods: Physicians in Ontario, Canada, who signed up for and accessed the audit and feedback report were invited to complete a questionnaire assessing goal priority, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, descriptive norms, and intention in relation to the three targeted behaviours (adjusting prescribing of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and antidepressants) and a control behaviour (adjusting statin prescribing). We conducted multiple linear regression analyses to identify predictors of intention. We also conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews to investigate how physicians in nursing homes prioritise their goals in relation to appropriately adjusting prescribing of the medications included in the report: analysis was informed by the framework analysis method.

Results: Thirty-three of 89 (37%) physicians completed the questionnaire. Goal priority was the only significant predictor of intention for each medication type; the greater a priority it was for physicians to appropriately adjust their prescribing, the stronger was their intention to do so. Across five interviews, physicians reported prioritising adjustment of antipsychotic prescribing specifically. This was influenced by negative media coverage of antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes, the provincial government's mandate to address antipsychotic prescribing, and by the deprescribing initiatives or best practice routines in place in their nursing homes.

Conclusions: Goal priority predicted nursing home physicians' intention to adjust prescribing. Targeting goal priority through implementation interventions therefore has the potential to influence behaviour via increased motivation. Implementation intervention developers should consider the external factors that may drive physicians' prioritization.

Keywords: Audit and feedback; Goal priority; Healthcare provider behaviour; High-risk medications; Nursing home; Prescribing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Descriptive characteristics for theory-based constructs assessed in relation to prescribing behaviour change (n = 33). Response scale: 1–5 Likert scale, strongly disagree–strongly agree (3 = neither agree nor disagree). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Locke EA, Latham GP. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. Am Psychol. 2002;57:705–717. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Presseau J, Sniehotta FF, Francis JJ, Campbell NC. Multiple goals and time constraints: perceived impact on physicians’ performance of evidence-based behaviours. Implement Sci. 2009;4:77. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-77. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001 [cited 2018 Jun 4]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222274/ - PubMed
    1. Ivers NM, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012:CD000259. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Colquhoun HL, Brehaut JC, Sales A, Ivers N, Grimshaw J, Michie S, et al. A systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback. Implement Sci. 2013;8:66. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-66. - DOI - PMC - PubMed