Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19377371›Full record

ArticleHealthcare policy = Politiques de sante2008

Performance reporting to help organizations promote quality improvement.

Canadian Health Services Research Foundation

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Benchmarks for acute stroke care delivery.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2013
    Article
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

1 author.

Canadian Health Services Research Foundation

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In healthcare, a great deal of time, money and energy go into producing public reports for a wide range of audiences. Reporting strategies often target audiences like the general public, whose behaviour is not readily changed by the information in report cards. However, when it comes to effectively targeting groups that can actually use the data to achieve significant impacts, one audience stands out from the rest: health system managers and providers, who can interpret and apply performance data to improve the quality of care their organizations deliver. The evidence behind performance reports was recently summarized in Evidence Boost for Quality, a special subseries of Evidence Boost, produced by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation to showcase healthcare issues where research indicates a preferred course of action in health services management and policy. To access archived issues of Evidence Boost, visit <http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/eb_e.php>.

Identifiers

PMID19377371
PMCPMC2645213

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.