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
. 2024 Apr 5;24(1):433.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-10915-2.

Developing a questionnaire to evaluate an automated audit & feedback intervention: a Rand-modified Delphi method

Ine Van den Wyngaert  1 , Gijs Van Pottelbergh  2 , Kristien Coteur  2 , Bert Vaes  2 , Steve Van den Bulck  2   3
Affiliations

Developing a questionnaire to evaluate an automated audit & feedback intervention: a Rand-modified Delphi method

Ine Van den Wyngaert et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a widely used implementation strategy to evaluate and improve medical practice. The optimal design of an A&F system is uncertain and structured process evaluations are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire to evaluate the use of automated A&F systems.

Methods: Based on the Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) and the REFLECT-52 (REassessing audit & Feedback interventions: a tooL for Evaluating Compliance with suggested besT practices) evaluation tool a questionnaire was designed for the purpose of evaluating automated A&F systems. A Rand-modified Delphi method was used to develop the process evaluation and obtain validation. Fourteen experts from different domains in primary care consented to participate and individually scored the questions on a 9-point Likert scale. Afterwards, the questions were discussed in a consensus meeting. After approval, the final questionnaire was compiled.

Results: A 34-question questionnaire composed of 57 items was developed and presented to the expert panel. The consensus meeting resulted in a selection of 31 questions, subdivided into 43 items. A final list of 30 questions consisting of 42 items was obtained.

Conclusion: A questionnaire consisting of 30 questions was drawn up for the assessment and improvement of automated A&F systems, based on CP-FIT and REFLECT-52 theory and approved by experts. Next steps will be piloting and implementation of the questionnaire.

Keywords: Audit and feedback; Delphi method; Medical audit; Process evaluation; Quality of health care; Questionnaire.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Timeline of the research
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Different phases of development of the questionnaire
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O'Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006(2):1–105. - PubMed
    1. Glenngard AH, Anell A. The impact of audit and feedback to support change behaviour in healthcare organisations - a cross-sectional qualitative study of primary care centre managers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):663. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Flottorp SA, Jamtvedt G, Gibis B, McKee M. Using audit and feedback to health professionals to improve the quality and safety of health care. World Health Organization, on behalf of the Eur Observ Health Syst Policies. 2010:1–54.
    1. Ivers N, 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(6):1–219. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Van den Bulck S, Spitaels D, Vaes B, Goderis G, Hermens R, Vankrunkelsven P. The effect of electronic audits and feedback in primary care and factors that contribute to their effectiveness: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2020;32(10):708–20. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa128. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources