Abstract
BACKGROUND: For eHealth technologies in general and audit and feedback (AF) systems specifically, integrating interdisciplinary theoretical underpinnings is essential, as it increases the likelihood of achieving desired outcomes by ensuring a fit among eHealth technology, stakeholders, and their context. In addition, reporting on the development and implementation process of AF systems, including substantiations of choices, enables the identification of best practices and accumulation of knowledge across studies but is often not elaborated on in publications. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to provide insights into the development and implementation strategies for AF systems for a real-world problem that threatens modern health care-antimicrobial resistance-and provide an interdisciplinary conceptual framework that can serve as a checklist and guidance for making informed choices in the development and implementation of future AF systems. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted by querying PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, and Embase (≥2010) for studies describing either the development or implementation process, or both, of an AF system for antimicrobial resistance or infections in hospitals. Studies reporting only on effectiveness or impact were excluded. A total of 3 independent reviewers performed the study selection, and 2 reviewers constructed the conceptual framework through the axial and selective coding of often-used theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) from the literature on AF and eHealth development and implementation. Subsequently, the conceptual framework was used for the systematic extraction and interpretation of the studies' descriptions of AF systems and their development and implementation. RESULTS: The search resulted in 2125 studies that were screened for eligibility, of which 12 (0.56%); 2012-2020) were included. These studies described the development and implementation processes heterogeneously in terms of study aims, study targets, target groups, methods, and theoretical underpinnings. Few studies have explicitly explained how choices for the development and implementation of AF systems were substantiated by the TMFs. The conceptual framework provided insights into what is reported on the development and implementation process and revealed underreported AF system constructs (eg, AF system design; engagement with the AF system; and comparison, goal setting, and action planning) and development and implementation (eg, champions) constructs. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review showed the current heterogeneous reporting of AF systems and their development and implementation processes and exemplified how interdisciplinary TMFs can (and should) be balanced in a conceptual framework to capture relevant AF systems and development and implementation constructs. Thereby, it provides a concrete checklist and overall guidance that supports the professionalization and harmonization of AF system development and implementation. For the development and implementation of future AF systems and other eHealth technologies, researchers and health care workers should be supported in selecting and integrating TMFs into their development and implementation process and encouraged to explicitly report on theoretical underpinnings and the substantiation of choices.