↓ Skip to main content

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
43 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1221 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1254 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000259.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noah Ivers, Gro Jamtvedt, Signe Flottorp, Jane M Young, Jan Odgaard-Jensen, Simon D French, Mary Ann O'Brien, Marit Johansen, Jeremy Grimshaw, Andrew D Oxman

Abstract

Audit and feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice either on its own or as a component of multifaceted quality improvement interventions. This is based on the belief that healthcare professionals are prompted to modify their practice when given performance feedback showing that their clinical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target. Despite its prevalence as a quality improvement strategy, there remains uncertainty regarding both the effectiveness of audit and feedback in improving healthcare practice and the characteristics of audit and feedback that lead to greater impact.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,254 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 21 2%
United States 11 <1%
Canada 11 <1%
Spain 6 <1%
South Africa 5 <1%
Australia 4 <1%
Netherlands 4 <1%
Indonesia 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Other 13 1%
Unknown 1175 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 257 20%
Researcher 207 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 162 13%
Unspecified 103 8%
Student > Postgraduate 100 8%
Other 425 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 604 48%
Unspecified 166 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 138 11%
Social Sciences 98 8%
Psychology 60 5%
Other 188 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 24 May 2019.
All research outputs
#301,560
of 13,122,286 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#833
of 10,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,226
of 121,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,122,286 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 121,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.