About this Research Topic
Evidence shows that there is a large variability in health care services organization and health outcomes. Moreover, extensive research demonstrates that inequities related to socioeconomic position pervade the healthcare system across different dimensions of quality. Audit and feedback (A&F) are defined as "any summary (written or verbal) of clinical performance of health care over a specified time". The purpose of A&F is to measure a clinician's performance, compare it to a standard, and then feed the results back to the clinician to improve practice. A&F is commonly used to help providers to identify the gap between knowledge and practice and improve the quality of care. According to two Cochrane reviews, A&F activities generally lead to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice. Moreover, whether these interventions are effective at reducing health disparities remains unclear.
Despite the high prevalence of A&F as a quality improvement strategy, the optimum methods for implementation of such interventions and the characteristics of A&F that lead to greater impact are unknown. There is a need for a head-to-head comparison of different types of A&F or comparison versus other techniques, single versus multi-intervention approaches, and to evaluate change practice barriers and drivers. Moreover, a one-size-fits-all approach is not expected to work in different clinical and organizational settings. A&F approaches could lead to improve quality, patients' outcomes, and to reduce inequalities in healthcare. The identification of barriers and facilitating factors in using A&F is predicted to support its effective implementation.
We are interested in original research, systematic reviews, methods articles, reviews, mini reviews, policy and practice reviews, perspectives, brief research reports, and data reports aimed at:
• Test the effectiveness of A&F interventions in improving health professional practices and patients' outcomes in different settings using both a quantitative and a qualitative approach
• Examine factors that may explain variations in the effectiveness of A&F interventions and to identify patient-, provider-, organization-, and system-level facilitators or barriers using both a quantitative and a qualitative approach
• Scale up local, regional, and national experiences in A&F implementation.
Despite the high prevalence of A&F as a quality improvement strategy, the optimum methods for implementation of such interventions and the characteristics of A&F that lead to greater impact are unknown. There is a need for a head-to-head comparison of different types of A&F or comparison versus other techniques, single versus multi-intervention approaches, and to evaluate change practice barriers and drivers. Moreover, a one-size-fits-all approach is not expected to work in different clinical and organizational settings. A&F approaches could lead to improve quality, patients' outcomes, and to reduce inequalities in healthcare. The identification of barriers and facilitating factors in using A&F is predicted to support its effective implementation.
We are interested in original research, systematic reviews, methods articles, reviews, mini reviews, policy and practice reviews, perspectives, brief research reports, and data reports aimed at:
• Test the effectiveness of A&F interventions in improving health professional practices and patients' outcomes in different settings using both a quantitative and a qualitative approach
• Examine factors that may explain variations in the effectiveness of A&F interventions and to identify patient-, provider-, organization-, and system-level facilitators or barriers using both a quantitative and a qualitative approach
• Scale up local, regional, and national experiences in A&F implementation.
Keywords: audit and feedback, healthcare systems, inequalities in healthcare, quality improvement, equity
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
