Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 330

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effects of feedback of information on clinical practice: a review.

Open access
Mugford, M, Banfield, P, O'Hanlon, M·1991·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.303.6799.398
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To establish what is known about the role of feedback of statistical information in changing clinical practice. DESIGN: Review of 36 studies of interventions entailing the use of statistical information for audit or practice review, which used a formal research design. SUBJECTS: Papers identified from computer searches of medical and health service management publications, of which 36 describing studies of interventions designed to influence clinical care and including information feedback from clinical or administrative data systems were reviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Evidence for effect of information feedback on change in clinical practice. RESULTS: Information feedback was most likely to influence clinical practice if it was part of strategy to target decision makers who had already agreed to review their practice. A more direct effect was discernable if the information was presented close to the time of decision making. The questions of the optimum layout and quantity of information were not addressed; the 36 papers were insufficient for defining good formats for information to be used for audit or quality assurance. CONCLUSIONS: Given the cost of information processing and the current emphasis on closing the audit loop in the health services, it is important that the use of information in the audit process should be critically evaluated.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.303.6799.398

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Mugford, M., Banfield, P., & O'Hanlon, M.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1991-08-17
Volume
303
Issue
6799
Pages
398-402
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
DOI
10.1136/bmj.303.6799.398
OpenAlex
W1965780010
Cited by
330
References
0
FWCI
71.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.