↓ Skip to main content

The impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 2,628)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
75 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
The impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Medical Education, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1277-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Baines, Sam Regan de Bere, Sebastian Stevens, Jamie Read, Martin Marshall, Mirza Lalani, Marie Bryce, Julian Archer

Abstract

Patient feedback is considered integral to quality improvement and professional development. However, while popular across the educational continuum, evidence to support its efficacy in facilitating positive behaviour change in a postgraduate setting remains unclear. This review therefore aims to explore the evidence that supports, or refutes, the impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors. Electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were systematically searched for studies assessing the impact of patient feedback on medical performance published in the English language between 2006-2016. Impact was defined as a measured change in behaviour using Barr's (2000) adaptation of Kirkpatrick's four level evaluation model. Papers were quality appraised, thematically analysed and synthesised using a narrative approach. From 1,269 initial studies, 20 articles were included (qualitative (n=8); observational (n=6); systematic review (n=3); mixed methodology (n=1); randomised control trial (n=1); and longitudinal (n=1) design). One article identified change at an organisational level (Kirkpatrick level 4); six reported a measured change in behaviour (Kirkpatrick level 3b); 12 identified self-reported change or intention to change (Kirkpatrick level 3a), and one identified knowledge or skill acquisition (Kirkpatrick level 2). No study identified a change at the highest level, an improvement in the health and wellbeing of patients. The main factors found to influence the impact of patient feedback were: specificity; perceived credibility; congruence with physician self-perceptions and performance expectations; presence of facilitation and reflection; and inclusion of narrative comments. The quality of feedback facilitation and local professional cultures also appeared integral to positive behaviour change. Patient feedback can have an impact on medical performance. However, actionable change is influenced by several contextual factors and cannot simply be guaranteed. Patient feedback is likely to be more influential if it is specific, collected through credible methods and contains narrative information. Data obtained should be fed back in a way that facilitates reflective discussion and encourages the formulation of actionable behaviour change. A supportive cultural understanding of patient feedback and its intended purpose is also essential for its effective use.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 75 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Researcher 10 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 7%
Other 31 25%
Unknown 32 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 33%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 39 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 01 February 2019.
All research outputs
#468,993
of 18,936,256 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#26
of 2,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,862
of 289,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,936,256 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 289,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them