Precision Feedback for Improving Engagement

Overseen By Jerison Ross

Age: 18+

Sex: Any

Trial Phase: Academic

Sponsor: University of Michigan

Disqualifiers: Not top 100 volume, study team, opt out

No Placebo Group All trial participants will receive the active study treatment (no placebo)

Compensation: Varies

Number of Visits: Unknown

100 Participants Needed

Trial Summary

What is the purpose of this trial?

The study seeks to assess the impact of e-mailing specific, targeted, practice-pattern based information ("precision feedback") on provider engagement with a dashboard for a quality process measure (showing stent omission after pre-stented ureteroscopy), compared with generic information ("one size fits most" feedback).

Will I have to stop taking my current medications?

The trial information does not specify whether participants must stop taking their current medications.

What data supports the effectiveness of the treatment Precision Feedback Push?

Research shows that providing feedback from patient-reported outcomes can improve care processes and patient outcomes, especially when feedback is tailored to individual needs. Precision feedback, which customizes information to highlight important performance gaps, has shown promise in improving clinical practice and patient engagement. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

How is the Precision Feedback Push treatment different from other treatments?

The Precision Feedback Push treatment is unique because it uses personalized feedback to improve engagement, which is not a common approach in other treatments. This method leverages the psychological impact of feedback to enhance awareness and motivation, potentially leading to better outcomes. ^{6 7 8 9 10}

Research Team

Kristian Stensland, MD

Principal Investigator

University of Michigan

Eligibility Criteria

This trial is for healthcare providers who use a dashboard to track quality measures, specifically stent omission after pre-stented ureteroscopy. The study aims to see if tailored feedback improves their engagement with the dashboard.

Inclusion Criteria

Urologists participating in MUSIC that were in the top one hundred individuals in annual case volume from 2023 for 'pre-stented ureteroscopy', the case for which the dashboard contents are most relevant.

Exclusion Criteria

Urologists that opt out from the study at the individual or site level.

Urologists that are not in the top one hundred individuals in annual 'pre-stented ureteroscopy' case volume

Urologists in the study team

Timeline

Screening

Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial

2-4 weeks

Initial Dashboard Engagement

Participants engage with the dashboard without precision feedback

3-12 months

Ongoing virtual engagement

Precision Feedback Intervention

Participants receive precision feedback to enhance dashboard engagement

3-12 months

Ongoing virtual engagement

Follow-up

Participants are monitored for engagement metrics and feedback effectiveness

3 months

Treatment Details

Interventions

• Precision Feedback Push

Trial Overview The study is testing whether sending personalized emails with precise feedback on practice patterns increases provider interaction with a quality measure dashboard compared to generic feedback.

Participant Groups

Group I: Group 4 dashboard (12 months) then dashboard with Precision feedback (3 months) Experimental Treatment 2 Interventions

Months 0-12 dashboard only, months 12-15 months dashboard with Precision feedback.

Group II: Group 3 dashboard (9 months) then dashboard with Precision feedback (6 months) Experimental Treatment 2 Interventions

Months 0-9 dashboard only, months 9-15 months dashboard with Precision feedback.

Group III: Group 2 dashboard (6 months) then dashboard with Precision feedback (6 months) Experimental Treatment 2 Interventions

Months 0-6 dashboard only, months 6-15 months dashboard with Precision feedback.

Group IV: Group 1 dashboard (3 months) then dashboard with Precision feedback (12 months) Experimental Treatment 2 Interventions

Months 0-3 dashboard only, months 3-15 months dashboard with Precision feedback.

Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?

University of Michigan

Lead Sponsor

Trials

1,891

Recruited

6,458,000+

Findings from Research

Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) feedback interventions in oncology showed a positive impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL) and patient-healthcare provider communication, with a moderate effect size based on a meta-analysis of 29 studies involving 7071 cancer patients.

The intervention also demonstrated a significant improvement in 1-year overall survival rates, suggesting that providing feedback can enhance care processes and outcomes for cancer patients, although the findings are limited by a high risk of bias in the studies reviewed.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Effectiveness of routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements for cancer care improvement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lu, SC., Porter, I., Valderas, JM., et al.[2023]

The study aims to implement a precision audit and feedback (A&F) system in anesthesia care, which tailors performance feedback to individual providers based on their specific needs and performance gaps, potentially improving care quality and outcomes.

Conducted with over 60 hospitals in a national consortium, the study will evaluate the effectiveness of this precision A&F approach through a cluster randomized controlled trial, with data collection starting in March 2022 and the intervention phase beginning in March 2024.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A Scalable Service to Improve Health Care Quality Through Precision Audit and Feedback: Proposal for a Randomized Controlled Trial. Landis-Lewis, Z., Flynn, A., Janda, A., et al.[2022]

References

1. Germany pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Effectiveness of routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements for cancer care improvement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [2023]

2. Canada pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A Scalable Service to Improve Health Care Quality Through Precision Audit and Feedback: Proposal for a Randomized Controlled Trial. [2022]

3. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The effects of a computer-tailored message on secondary prevention in type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. [2022]

4. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Feedback from Outcome Measures and Treatment Effectiveness, Treatment Efficiency, and Collaborative Practice: A Systematic Review. [2022]

5. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Practice Feedback Interventions: 15 Suggestions for Optimizing Effectiveness. [2022]

6. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Feedback strategies to raise awareness of personal dietary intake: results of a randomized controlled trial. [2019]

7. Switzerland pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Eye Tracking the Feedback Assigned to Undergraduate Students in a Digital Assessment Game. [2023]

8. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Waiting for feedback helps if you want to know the answer: the role of curiosity in the delay-of-feedback benefit. [2022]

9. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Facilitating the Feedback Process on a Clinical Clerkship Using a Smartphone Application. [2018]

10. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The impact of progress indicators on task completion. [2021]