Combined digital and paper audit feedback did not improve asthma prescribing versus digital-only in primary care.
This was a cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in 270 primary care practices in West Yorkshire. Practices were randomized to receive either combined digital and paper audit and feedback reports or digital-only reports on asthma prescribing. The intervention was delivered over seven bimonthly reports.
The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of preventer inhalers prescribed in pressurised metered-dose devices. The result showed no significant difference between the intervention groups. The risk ratio was 1.00 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.03). The absolute change was -0.15% in the intervention group and -0.19% in the control group.
Safety and tolerability were not reported in the abstract. Key limitations included practice mergers in the control group and background trends of mixed improvement following feedback. The certainty note states results are based on a cluster randomized controlled trial, with confidence intervals including no effect.
The practice relevance noted the demonstrated value of an efficient 'real-world' trial embedded within an existing quality improvement initiative. However, the do not overstate guidance clarifies there is no evidence that combined feedback was more effective than digital-only, and background improvements do not imply superiority.