Cited by 33Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeClinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Policy Implementation Science

Economic evaluations of audit and feedback interventions: a systematic review

Moore, Lynne, Guertin, Jason Robert, Tardif, Pier-Alexandre, Ivers, Noah Michael, Hoch, Jeffrey, Conombo, Blanchard, Antony, Jesmin, Stelfox, Henry Thomas +5 more·2022·BMJ Quality & Safety

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions to improve compliance to healthcare guidelines is supported by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs. However, there is currently a knowledge gap on their cost-effectiveness. Objective: We aimed to assess whether A&F interventions targeting improvements in compliance to recommended care are economically favourable. Methods: We conducted a systematic review including experimental, observational and simulation-based economic evaluation studies of A&F interventions targeting healthcare providers. Comparators were a ‘do nothing’ strategy, or any other intervention not involving A&F or involving a subset of A&F intervention components. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Econlit, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, ABI/INFORM, Web of Science, ProQuest and websites of healthcare quality associations to December 2021. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net benefit and incremental cost-benefit ratios. Pairs of reviewers independently selected eligible studies and extracted relevant data. Reporting quality was evaluated using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards). Results were synthesised using permutation matrices for all studies and predefined subgroups. Results: Of 13 221 unique citations, 35 studies met our inclusion criteria. The A&F intervention was dominant (ie, at least as effective with lower cost) in 7 studies, potentially cost-effective in 26 and was dominated (ie, the same or less effectiveness and higher costs) in 2 studies. A&F interventions were more likely to be economically favourable in studies based on health outcomes rather than compliance to recommended practice, considering medical costs in addition to intervention costs, published since 2010, and with high reporting quality. Discussion: Results suggest that A&F interventions may have a high potential to be cost-effective. However, as is common in systematic reviews of economic evaluations, publication bias could have led to an overestimation of their economic value.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjqs-2022-014727

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Much of the evidence for individual or groups of ERIC strategies remains narrowly focused, with prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses generally focusing on a specific strategy, subpopulation, disease, outcome, service setting, or geography.

    “However, much of the evidence for individual or groups of ERIC strategies remains narrowly focused. Prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed strategy effectiveness, but have generally focused on a specific strategy, (e.g., Audit and Provide Feedback) [14–16], subpopulation, disease (e.g., individuals living with dementia) [16], outcome [15], service setting (e.g., primary care Clin”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moore, L., Guertin, J. R., Tardif, P.-A., Ivers, N. M., Hoch, J., Conombo, B., Antony, J., Stelfox, H. T., Berthelot, S., Archambault, P., Turgeon, A., Gandhi, R., & Grimshaw, J.
Affiliations
  • CHU de Québec-Université Laval (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Women's College Hospital (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CA)
  • Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding author
Moore, Lynne
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2022-06-24
Volume
31
Issue
10
Pages
754-767
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
OpenAlex
W4283369394
Cited by
33
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 5
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (168833, 353374)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
audit and feedback, cost-effectiveness, guideline adherence, healthcare workers, quality improvement intervention, economic evaluation, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, publication bias, reporting quality
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delivery of Health Care, Feedback, Health Personnel, Humans

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