ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2008
Use of quality improvement methods in Finnish health centres in 1998 and 2003.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary care guidelines: Senior executives' views on changing health centre practices in hypertension treatment.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2009Article
- Addressing the future role of general practice at the 16th Nordic Congress in Copenhagen 2009: how can we ensure sustainable care in a complex world of evidence, context, organization, and personal care?Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate how widely quality improvement methods are used in Finnish primary health centres and how the use has changed over five years.
designTwo national cross-sectional postal enquiries. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: The questionnaire in 1998 was sent to every other physician graduated during the years 1977-1986, and the questionnaire in 2003 to every other physician graduated during the years 1982-1991. The response rates were 73.9% and 62.2%. The answers of primary healthcare physicians (n = 503 vs. 344) were analysed.
main outcome measuresThe availability of 13 quality improvement methods was solicited. The change over five years was analysed.
resultsOpportunity to obtain continuing medical education (CME), in-service training, meetings, opportunity to consult a colleague in own speciality, and agreed guidelines on how a certain problem should be solved were highly reported both in 1998 and 2003. The biggest improvement (16.8%) concerned clinical guidelines. There was also progress with regard to quality improvement manuals at the place of work, opportunity to consult a colleague in another speciality, and computer-assisted monitoring of own work.
conclusionMany quality improvement methods were highly reported in both 1998 and 2003 in Finnish health centres. The biggest positive change concerns clinical guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.