Optimize Audit and feedbaCk To Implement eVidence-based prAcTices in Primary Health carE

Trial statusNot yet recruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age18-80
SponsorSouthern Medical University, China

About this trial

The investigators will use two phases of Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) - preparation and optimization phases. In the preparation phase, Audit and Feedback (AnF) intervention will be prepared. First, the investigators will use scoping review to develop conceptual frameworks for AnF components. The outcome indicators and resource constraints for intervention will be identified based on the literature reviews. Second, an expert consultation meeting will be conducted to develop a set of candidate components for the AnF intervention. Around 10 relevant scholars and primary healthcare workers will be invited to rank the components that researchers conclude from the literature. The top 7 ranked components will be assessed by Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) questionnaires to finally identify 3 key components for AnF intervention.

In the optimization phase, the investigators will identify AnF intervention that will lead to the best desired results within key resource constraints in terms of effectiveness , efficiency, economy and scalability. First, the investigators will realistically and comprehensively assess the quality of care provided by primary healthcare facilities of the four Low and Middle Income countries (LMICs) using USP. Second, a 2×2×2 factorial design (RCT) will be conducted to determine how the results of quality of care can be fed back to primary healthcare workers in the four LMICs in order to optimize the impact of improving healthcare quality. To achieve this goal, the factorial trial will involve the 3 identified key AnF components at 2 levels each, for a total of 8 intervention groups (i.e. 8 different ways to conduct audit and feedback). By randomly assigning healthcare facilities to one of these 8 different ways to conduct audit and feedback, the investigators can obtain the change in the quality of care after implementing audit and feedback interventions in these facilities. Then, through statistical analysis, the investigators can estimate main and interaction effects for AnF components on improving the quality of primary health care. After that, the optimal combination of AnF components will be determined by trade off of the effects of AnF components and resource constraints in local primary healthcare implementation settings. Study details are as follows.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

In Mozambique, the inclusion criteria are nurses, technicians of general medicine and doctors in public primary healthcare facilities.

In Zanzibar, Tanzania, the inclusion criteria are clinical officers, nurses and doctors in public primary healthcare facilities.

In Nepal, the inclusion criteria are doctors, health assistants, and senior auxiliary health workers in public primary healthcare facilities.

In China, the inclusion criteria are doctors practicing in public primary healthcare facilities.

Disqualifiers

None

Trial design

Design model

Factorial

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Feedback provided face to face

    Behavioral

    Feedback will be provided face-to-face.

  • Feedback provided by electronic mail

    Behavioral

    Feedback will be provided by electronic mail.

  • Feedback provided by researchers

    Behavioral

    Feedback will be provided by researchers.

  • Feedback provided by authoritative bodies

    Behavioral

    Feedback will be provided by authoritative bodies.

  • Feedback provided with peer comparision

    Behavioral

    Feedback will be provided with peer comparison.

  • Feedback provided without peer comparision

    Behavioral

    Feedback will be provided without peer comparision.

Treatment groups

344 Participants
are divided into 8 treatment groups

8

Treatment groups

See each treatment group below.

Group A: Face to face by researchers with peer comparisionExperimental treatment 3 interventions
Group B: Face to face by authoritative bodies with peer comparisionExperimental treatment 3 interventions
Group C: Face to face by researchers without peer comparisionExperimental treatment 3 interventions
Group D: Electronic mail by researchers with peer comparisionExperimental treatment 3 interventions
Group E: Face to face by authoritative bodies without peer comparisionExperimental treatment 3 interventions
Group F: Electronic mail by authoritative bodies with peer comparisionExperimental treatment 3 interventions
Group G: Electronic mail by researchers without peer comparisionExperimental treatment 3 interventions
Group H: Electronic mail by authoritative bodies without peer comparisionExperimental treatment 3 interventions

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

The proportion of completed guideline-recommended quality checklist items for consultation of hypertension cases and Type II diabetes cases of the primary healthcare (PHC) providers among all of the items

The primary outcome is a continuous score ranging from 0 to 100%. It will be assessed by Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs).

Time frame
An average of 1 month and 3 months

Secondary outcomes

1

The proportion of completed guideline-recommended quality checklist items for physical and laboratory exams of hypertension cases and Type II diabetes cases of the PHC providers among all of the items

This is a continuous score ranging from 0 to 100%. It will be assessed by USPs.

Time frame
An average of 1 month and 3 months
2

Correctness of diagnosis of hypertension cases and type II diabetes cases by PHC providers

This will be categorized into 2 categories: correct diagnosis, and incorrect diagnosis. It will be assessed by USPs.

Time frame
An average of 1 month and 3 months
3

Correctness of treatment of hypertension cases and type II diabetes cases by PHC providers

This will be categorized into 2 categories: correct treatment, and incorrect treatment. It will be assessed by USPs.

Time frame
An average of 1 month and 3 months
4

Timeliness of hypertension and type II diabetes services in primary healthcare settings.

Timeliness of hypertension and type II diabetes will be assessed by USPs by using Quality of care assessment tools. Timeliness will be judged on the basis of opening hours, waiting time, and consultation time of the service.

Time frame
An average of 1 month and 3 months

Other outcomes

Locations

This trial has no locations.

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.

This trial is not recruiting at the moment. You can still explore other options: