↓ Skip to main content

Effect of a web-based audit and feedback intervention with outreach visits on the clinical performance of multidisciplinary teams: a cluster-randomized trial in cardiac rehabilitation

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of a web-based audit and feedback intervention with outreach visits on the clinical performance of multidisciplinary teams: a cluster-randomized trial in cardiac rehabilitation
Published in
Implementation Science, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0516-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wouter T. Gude, Mariëtte M. van Engen-Verheul, Sabine N. van der Veer, Hareld M. C. Kemps, Monique W. M. Jaspers, Nicolette F. de Keizer, Niels Peek

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the effect of a web-based audit and feedback (A&F) intervention with outreach visits to support decision-making by multidisciplinary teams. We performed a multicentre cluster-randomized trial within the field of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in the Netherlands. Our participants were multidisciplinary teams in Dutch CR centres who were enrolled in the study between July 2012 and December 2013 and received the intervention for at least 1 year. The intervention included web-based A&F with feedback on clinical performance, facilities for goal setting and action planning, and educational outreach visits. Teams were randomized either to receive feedback that was limited to psychosocial rehabilitation (study group A) or to physical rehabilitation (study group B). The main outcome measure was the difference in performance between study groups in 11 care processes and six patient outcomes, measured at patient level. Secondary outcomes included effects on guideline concordance for the four main CR therapies. Data from 18 centres (14,847 patients) were analysed, of which 12 centres (9353 patients) were assigned to group A and six (5494 patients) to group B. During the intervention, a total of 233 quality improvement goals was identified by participating teams, of which 49 (21%) were achieved during the study period. Except for a modest improvement in data completeness (4.5% improvement per year; 95% CI 0.65 to 8.36), we found no effect of our intervention on any of our primary or secondary outcome measures. Within a multidisciplinary setting, our web-based A&F intervention engaged teams to define local performance improvement goals but failed to support them in actually completing the improvement actions that were needed to achieve those goals. Future research should focus on improving the actionability of feedback on clinical performance and on addressing the socio-technical perspective of the implementation process. NTR3251.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Master 8 7%
Professor 6 5%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 40 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 19%
Psychology 10 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 47 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 December 2021.
All research outputs
#4,126,362
of 23,905,714 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#790
of 1,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,248
of 424,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#15
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,905,714 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,740 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,664 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.