Trial reportAnnals of family medicine
Effects of facilitated team meetings and learning collaboratives on colorectal cancer screening rates in primary care practices: a cluster randomized trial.
Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review.Primary health care research & development · 2024Pooled it
- The role of quality improvement collaboratives in general practice: a qualitative systematic review.BMJ open quality · 2022Pooled it
- The effectiveness of continuous quality improvement for developing professional practice and improving health care outcomes: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Data-Driven Quality Improvement on Hospitalizations and Health Outcomes for People With Coronary Heart Disease in Primary Care (QUEL): A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial With 24-Month Follow-Up.Circulation. Population health and outcomes · 2026Trial
- Using co-design to develop actionable strategies to identify and follow-up on breast cancer survivors in primary care.BMC health services research · 2026Trial
- A Virtual Breakthrough Series Collaborative for Missed Test Results: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Cannabis and Young Users-A Brief Intervention to Reduce Their Consumption (CANABIC): A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Care.Annals of family medicine · 2017Trial
- Article
- Enhancing Qualitative and Quantitative Data Linkages in Complex Mixed Methods Designs: Illustrations from a Multi-Phase Healthcare Delivery Study.Journal of mixed methods research · 2024Article
- Health system assessment for access to care after injury in low- or middle-income countries: A mixed methods study from Northern Malawi.PLoS medicine · 2024Article
- Adapting and implementing breast cancer follow-up in primary care: protocol for a mixed methods hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized study.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Article
- 'I'm a bit of a champion for it actually': qualitative insights into practitioner-supported self-collection cervical screening among early adopting Victorian practitioners in Australia.Primary health care research & development · 2023Article
- Impact of externally facilitated continuous quality improvement cohorts on Advanced Access to support primary healthcare teams: protocol for a quasi-randomized cluster trial.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Implementation of a Web-Based Tool for Shared Decision-making in Lung Cancer Screening: Mixed Methods Quality Improvement Evaluation.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- Aiming for quality: a global compass for national learning systems.Health research policy and systems · 2021Review
- Implementation of Community-Based Resource Referrals for Cardiovascular Disease Self-Management.Annals of family medicine · 2020Article
- Leading Innovative Practice: Leadership Attributes in LEAP Practices.The Milbank quarterly · 2020Article
- Understanding quality improvement collaboratives through an implementation science lens.Preventive medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate a primary care practice-based quality improvement (QI) intervention aimed at improving colorectal cancer screening rates.
methodsThe Supporting Colorectal Cancer Outcomes through Participatory Enhancements (SCOPE) study was a cluster randomized trial of New Jersey primary care practices. On-site facilitation and learning collaboratives were used to engage multiple stakeholders throughout the change process to identify and implement strategies to enhance colorectal cancer screening. Practices were analyzed using quantitative (medical records, surveys) and qualitative data (observations, interviews, and audio recordings) at baseline and a 12-month follow-up.
resultsComparing intervention and control arms of the 23 participating practices did not yield statistically significant improvements in patients' colorectal cancer screening rates. Qualitative analyses provide insights into practices' QI implementation, including associations between how well leaders fostered team development and the extent to which team members felt psychologically safe. Successful QI implementation did not always translate into improved screening rates.
conclusionsAlthough single-target, incremental QI interventions can be effective, practice transformation requires enhanced organizational learning and change capacities. The SCOPE model of QI may not be an optimal strategy if short-term guideline concordant numerical gains are the goal. Advancing the knowledge base of QI interventions requires future reports to address how and why QI interventions work rather than simply measuring whether they work.
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.