ArticleGlobal journal of health science2015
Comparison of laboratories directors' and assessors' opinions on challenges and solutions of standardization in Iran: a qualitative study.
Article in Global journal of health science, 2015. 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.
- Digital Specimen Tracking- and ISO 15189-Oriented Risk Management in Anatomic Pathology: A Qualitative Study of Expert Perspectives in Western Austria.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Key success factors for the implementation of quality management systems in developing countries.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe quality medical laboratory services play a vital role in healthcare systems. Iran has set national standards based on the international standard ISO15189. These standards came into force in September 2007. Given the important role of both laboratories professional and assessors in the standardization, this study aims to compare and analyze medical laboratory directors' and assessors' opinions about this process, its challenges and relevant solutions.
methodsThis qualitative study was conducted on two populations in 2013. The first survey population consisted of 150 assessors. The second group consisted of directors working in medical laboratory settings. From all universities of medical sciences, 258 medical laboratories were randomly selected. Data were gathered using two open-ended questionnaires and analyzed using the thematic analysis.
resultsChallenges and relevant solutions regarding the standardization and standards, the assessment process and assessor, laboratories, external entities and contextual factors across laboratories directors and assessors were derived and compared. Both groups had a positive attitude towards the standardization process. However, they expressed some concerns regarding the process and accordingly proposed solutions to overcome the challenges.
conclusionThis study provides insights into the challenges and solutions of the standardization from two professional groups' viewpoint. These two factors are closely related and should be considered when implementing standards since a positive perception of them increases the likelihood of successful standardization. Similarities and divergences regarding challenges and solutions of the standardization, in turn, can provide insights into how this process can be improved and deserve policy makers' attention to continue the progress.
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.