Article | Quality score | Country | Research design | Aim | Study setting | Intervention (Data dissemination process) | Sampling Approach | Data collection methods | Qualitative analysis approach |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Barber et al. [55] | 95.2% | Canada | Mixed-methods | 1. To describe both the operationalisation and reporting of practice performance. 2. To describe rheumatologists’ experiences with reports and group feedback. | Rheumatology Clinic | Audit & Feedback | Rheumatologists who had received individual reports on their practice were invited to complete a survey and interview. | A survey was used to explore report acceptability and usefulness. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to elaborate on experiences. | Thematic Analysis |
Cooke et al. [56] | 90.5% | Canada | Qualitative | 1. To explore physicians behaviours during a group audit and feedback session. 2. To explore how sessions lead to practice change and implementation discussions. | Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary | Audit & Feedback | All group audit and feedback sessions that took place between January 2015 and January 2016 were used. | Recorded group audit and feedback sessions were transcribed for analysis. | Thematic Analysis |
Desveaux et al. [57] | 100% | Canada | Qualitative | 1. To understand cognitive engagement when physicians engage with audit and feedback. 2. To explore how to close the gap between intention and action. | Primary care organization (six clinics) | Audit & Feedback | Physicians were invited to take part if they submitted a self-reflection task after intervention. Told about the research in a staff meeting and follow up reminder emails were used. Recruited until saturation was reached (June-September 2018). | Audio recorded, qualitative semi-structured interviews that were transcribed verbatim were used in conjunction with qualitative data from the self-reflection task. | Thematic Analysis |
Eden et al. [58] | 71.4% | USA | Qualitative | 1. To evaluate family physicians’ perceptions towards performance and peer comparison feedback. | Online survey | Quality Improvement Performance Feedback | Physicians who supplied free-text comments in an online survey (2004-2014). | Three open-ended feedback questions covering how to improve Performance in Practice Modules. | “grounded approach to” Thematic Analysis |
Ivanovic et al. [59] | 71.4% | Canada | Mixed-methods | 1. To create individualised surgeon performance reports. 2. To implement a surgery quality improvement program. 3. To understand surgeons’ perceptions towards the above. | Hospital | Surgeon-Specific Outcome Reports | Six surgeons within the Division of Thoracic Surgery. No additional sampling information was provided. | Interviews to identify facilitators and barriers of using surgeon-specific outcome reports and seminars. | Thematic Analysis |