Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2-6-2026

Comments

This article is the author's final published version in BMC Health Services Research, Volume 26, Issue 1, 2026, Article number 347.

The published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-14141-w. Copyright © The Author(s) 2026.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Audit & Feedback (A&F) interventions are recognized as effective strategies for enhancing healthcare quality, yet they remain relatively underutilized in Italian primary care settings. Recent literature highlights the importance of examining the factors influencing the implementation of these interventions across diverse clinical and organizational settings. Thus, this study aimed to identify such factors by exploring the experiences of professionals involved in an A&F intervention tailored for General Practitioners (GPs) treating chronic illnesses.

METHODS: Using qualitative research methods, this study organized focus groups (FGs) separately for each professional role involved in A&F: GPs, GPs acting as internal group coordinators, Public Health Physicians (PHPs) who served as liaisons between the Local Health Districts (LHDs) and groups of GPs, and Directors at LHD involved. All participants were invited to contribute to the FGs. A moderator guide was prepared, and sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Initial open coding led to development of a preliminary codebook, refined through iterative recoding cycles. Resultant codes were organized into 3 categories: barriers, facilitators, and recommendations and suggestions.

RESULTS: Participation rates among FGs varied, ranging from 9.3% (8/86 GPs) to 77.8% (7/9 PHPs). Participants identified barriers and facilitators to the implementation of A&F strategies. Factors described both as obstacles and facilitators to adoption included the time and organizational commitment; the participants’ motivation; the credibility of data sources; the characteristics of the GP coordinators and the PHP liaisons; and the perceived usefulness of participating in A&F. Furthermore, barriers included the excessive theoretical load of the education and training program; some contextual factors; personal characteristics of GPs; heterogeneity in available technology, and the habit of GPs working as individuals. Conversely, facilitators included some logistical and organizational factors; the involvement of recipients in the topic’s identification; social interactions with other professionals; and incentives. Participants proposed some recommendations and suggestions on how to improve A&F interventions involving GPs.

CONCLUSIONS: FGs allowed participants to share valuable insights into the barriers and facilitators essential for shaping improvement strategies in A&F interventions within general practice. Implementing these findings may enhance the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of future A&F interventions and increase their uptake.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-026-14141-w.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Language

English

Download

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.