HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jamtvedt, G. Articles by Oxman, A. D Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jamtvedt, G. Articles by Oxman, A. D

Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback

¹ Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway
² Surgical Outcomes Research Centre, Central Sydney Area Health Service, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
³ McMaster University and Supportive Cancer Care Research Unit, Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Correspondence to:
G Jamtvedt
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, PO Box 7004, St Olavs plass, Oslo N-0031, Norway; gro.jamtvedt{at}nokc.no Background: Many people advocate audit and feedback as a strategy for improving professional practice. The main results of an update of a Cochrane review on the effects of audit and feedback are reported.

Data sources: The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group’s register up to January 2004 was searched. Randomised trials of audit and feedback that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes were included.

Review methods: Data were independently extracted and the quality of studies were assessed by two reviewers. Quantitative, visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken.

Main results: 118 trials are included in the review. In the primary analysis, 88 comparisons from 72 studies were included that compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a component to no intervention. For dichotomous outcomes, the median-adjusted risk difference of compliance with desired practice was 5% (interquartile range 3–11). For continuous outcomes, the median-adjusted percentage change relative to control was 16% (interquartile range 5–37). Low baseline compliance with recommended practice and higher intensity of audit and feedback appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback.

Conclusions: Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. The effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low and intensity of audit and feedback is high.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Govindarajan, N. Fraser, V. Cranford, D. Wirtzfeld, S. Gallinger, C. H. L. Law, A. J. Smith, and A. R. Gagliardi Predictors of Multivisceral Resection in Patients with Locally Advanced Colorectal Cancer Ann. Surg. Oncol., July 1, 2008; 15(7): 1923 - 1930. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Feedback of audit can work sometimes (a little) BMJ, January 13, 2007; 334(7584): 68 - 68. [Full Text] [PDF]