Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26087653›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Do quality improvement collaboratives' educational components match the dominant learning style preferences of the participants?

Anne Marie Weggelaar-Jansen, Jeroen van Wijngaarden, Sarah-Sue Slaghuis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Anne Marie Weggelaar-JansenDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Campus Woudestein, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. annemarie@weggelaar.com.
Jeroen van WijngaardenDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Campus Woudestein, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. vanwijngaarden@bmg.eur.nl.
Sarah-Sue SlaghuisDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Campus Woudestein, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. sarahslaghuis@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality improvement collaboratives are used to improve healthcare by various organizations. Despite their popularity literature shows mixed results on their effectiveness. A quality improvement collaborative can be seen as a temporary learning organization in which knowledge about improvement themes and methods is exchanged. In this research we studied: Does the learning approach of a quality improvement collaborative match the learning styles preferences of the individual participants and how does that affect the learning process of participants?

methodsThis research used a mixed methods design combining a validated learning style questionnaire with data collected in the tradition of action research methodology to study two Dutch quality improvement collaboratives. The questionnaire is based on the learning style model of Ruijters and Simons, distinguishing five learning style preferences: Acquisition of knowledge, Apperception from others, Discovery of new insights, Exercising in fictitious situations and Participation with others.

resultsThe most preferred learning styles of the participants were Discovery and Participation. The learning style Acquisition was moderately preferred and Apperception and Exercising were least preferred. The educational components of the quality improvement collaboratives studied (national conferences, half-day learning sessions, faculty site visits and use of an online tool) were predominantly associated with the learning styles Acquisition and Apperception. We observed a decrease in attendance to the learning activities and non-conformance with the standardized set goals and approaches.

conclusionsWe conclude that the participants' satisfaction with the offered learning approach changed over time. The lacking match between these learning style preferences and the learning approach in the educational components of the quality improvement collaboratives studied might be the reason why the participants felt they did not gain new insights and therefore ceased their participation in the collaborative. This study provides guidance for future organisers and participants of quality improvement collaboratives about which learning approaches will best suit the participants and enhance improvement work.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorLearningQuality ImprovementAdultDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26087653
PMCPMC4473844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.