Pragmatic Factorial Cluster Trial of Framing and Comparators for Audit and Feedback
NCT ID: NCT02979964
Last Updated: 2018-10-05
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
285 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2016-12-06
2018-07-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Impact of Educational and Professional Supportive Interventions on Nursing Home Quality Indicators
NCT01703689
Supporting Family Caregivers With Technology for Dementia Home Care
NCT02483520
Improving Nursing Home Care Through Feedback On PerfoRMance Data
NCT02695836
The Hospice Advanced Dementia Symptom Management and Quality of Life Trial
NCT03681119
Pragmatic Trial of Video Education in Nursing Homes
NCT02612688
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
FACTORIAL
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Arm 1, Positive Framing
All metrics in the audit and feedback practice reports presented with 'positive' framing, where the proportion of patients safe from risk (i.e., appropriate/desirable prescribing behaviours) is described.
Audit and Feedback
Arm 2, Negative Framing
All metrics in the audit and feedback practice reports presented with 'negative' framing, where the proportion of patients at risk (i.e., due to inappropriate/undesirable prescribing behaviours) is described.
Audit and Feedback
Arm 3, Top Quartile Comparator
All metrics in the audit and feedback practice reports presented and the physician-recipient's performance is compared against the 75th percentile for performance by physicians working in nursing homes in the province for each metric.
Audit and Feedback
Arm 4, Average Comparator
All metrics in the audit and feedback practice reports presented and the physician-recipient's performance is compared against the average performance by physicians working in nursing homes in the province for each metric.
Audit and Feedback
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Audit and Feedback
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* practice in at least one LTC facility in Ontario;.
* have voluntarily signed up to receive an HQO practice report
Exclusion Criteria
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Health Quality Ontario
OTHER
Women's College Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Noah Ivers
M.D., PhD, CCFP
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Noah M Ivers, MD PhD CCFP
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Women's College Hospital - University of Toronto
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Women's College Hospital
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Ivers NM, Sales A, Colquhoun H, Michie S, Foy R, Francis JJ, Grimshaw JM. No more 'business as usual' with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention. Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 17;9:14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-14.
Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, O'Brien MA, Johansen M, Grimshaw J, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;2012(6):CD000259. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3.
Kiefe CI, Allison JJ, Williams OD, Person SD, Weaver MT, Weissman NW. Improving quality improvement using achievable benchmarks for physician feedback: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001 Jun 13;285(22):2871-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.22.2871.
Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, Vist GE, Terrenato I, Sperati F, Costiniuk C, Blank D, Schunemann H. Framing of health information messages. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 7;(12):CD006777. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006777.pub2.
Kluger AN, Van Dijk D. Feedback, the various tasks of the doctor, and the feedforward alternative. Med Educ. 2010 Dec;44(12):1166-74. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03849.x.
Hibbard JH, Peters E, Slovic P, Finucane ML, Tusler M. Making health care quality reports easier to use. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2001 Nov;27(11):591-604. doi: 10.1016/s1070-3241(01)27051-5.
Gould NJ, Lorencatto F, Stanworth SJ, Michie S, Prior ME, Glidewell L, Grimshaw JM, Francis JJ. Application of theory to enhance audit and feedback interventions to increase the uptake of evidence-based transfusion practice: an intervention development protocol. Implement Sci. 2014 Jul 29;9:92. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0092-1.
Weissman NW, Allison JJ, Kiefe CI, Farmer RM, Weaver MT, Williams OD, Child IG, Pemberton JH, Brown KC, Baker CS. Achievable benchmarks of care: the ABCs of benchmarking. J Eval Clin Pract. 1999 Aug;5(3):269-81. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.1999.00203.x.
Li AC, Kannry JL, Kushniruk A, Chrimes D, McGinn TG, Edonyabo D, Mann DM. Integrating usability testing and think-aloud protocol analysis with "near-live" clinical simulations in evaluating clinical decision support. Int J Med Inform. 2012 Nov;81(11):761-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.02.009. Epub 2012 Mar 27.
Cane J, O'Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:37. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-37.
McCleary N, Desveaux L, Presseau J, Reis C, Witteman HO, Taljaard M, Linklater S, Thavorn K, Dobell G, Mulhall CL, Lam JMC, Grimshaw JM, Ivers NM. Engagement is a necessary condition to test audit and feedback design features: results of a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial with an embedded process evaluation. Implement Sci. 2023 May 10;18(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s13012-023-01271-6.
Ivers NM, Desveaux L, Presseau J, Reis C, Witteman HO, Taljaard MK, McCleary N, Thavorn K, Grimshaw JM. Testing feedback message framing and comparators to address prescribing of high-risk medications in nursing homes: protocol for a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial. Implement Sci. 2017 Jul 14;12(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0615-7.
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
Health Quality Ontario Long-Term Care Practice Report
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2016-0122-E
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.