↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Social Comparison Feedback on Laboratory Test Ordering for Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Effect of Social Comparison Feedback on Laboratory Test Ordering for Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4482-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kira Ryskina, C. Jessica Dine, Yevgeniy Gitelman, Damien Leri, Mitesh Patel, Gregory Kurtzman, Lisa Y. Lin, Andrew J. Epstein

Abstract

Social comparison feedback is an increasingly popular strategy that uses performance report cards to modify physician behavior. Our objective was to test the effect of such feedback on the ordering of routine laboratory tests for hospitalized patients, a practice considered overused. This was a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Between January and June 2016, physicians on six general medicine teams at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania were cluster randomized with equal allocation to two arms: (1) those e-mailed a summary of their routine laboratory test ordering vs. the service average for the prior week, linked to a continuously updated personalized dashboard containing patient-level details, and snapshot of the dashboard and (2) those who did not receive the intervention. The primary outcome was the count of routine laboratory test orders placed by a physician per patient-day. We modeled the count of orders by each physician per patient-day after the intervention as a function of trial arm and the physician's order count before the intervention. The count outcome was modeled using negative binomial models with adjustment for clustering within teams. One hundred and fourteen interns and residents participated. We did not observe a statistically significant difference in adjusted reduction in routine laboratory ordering between the intervention and control physicians (physicians in the intervention group ordered 0.14 fewer tests per patient-day than physicians in the control group, 95% CI - 0.56 to 0.27, p = 0.50). Physicians whose absolute ordering rate deviated from the peer rate by more than 1.0 laboratory test per patient-day reduced their laboratory ordering by 0.80 orders per patient-day (95% CI - 1.58 to - 0.02, p = 0.04). Personalized social comparison feedback on routine laboratory ordering did not change targeted behavior among physicians, although there was a significant decrease in orders among participants who deviated more from the peer rate. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: #NCT02330289.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 19%
Computer Science 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,366,177
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,783
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,165
of 333,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#44
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.