Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12571344›Full record

ArticleQuality & safety in health care2003

Process evaluation on quality improvement interventions.

M E J L Hulscher, M G H Laurant, R P T M Grol

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 148 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

148 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Cognitive reframing for carers of people with dementia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

88 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M E J L HulscherCentre for Quality of Care Research (WOK), University Medical Centre Nijmegen, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. M.Hulscher@wok.umcn.nl
M G H Laurant
R P T M Grol

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To design potentially successful quality improvement (QI) interventions, it is crucial to make use of detailed breakdowns of the implementation processes of successful and unsuccessful interventions. Process evaluation can throw light on the mechanisms responsible for the result obtained in the intervention group. It enables researchers and implementers to (1). describe the intervention in detail, (2). check actual exposure to the intervention, and (3). describe the experience of those exposed. This paper presents a framework containing features of QI interventions that might influence success. Attention is paid to features of the target group, the implementers or change agents, the frequency of intervention activities, and features of the information imparted. The framework can be used as a starting point to address all three aspects of process evaluation mentioned above. Process evaluation can be applied to small scale improvement projects, controlled QI studies, and large scale QI programmes; in each case it plays a different role.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicProcess Assessment, Health CareCardiovascular DiseasesFamily PracticeFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleMass ScreeningMedical AuditNetherlandsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Program EvaluationTotal Quality ManagementUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID12571344
PMCPMC1743654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.