Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26306609›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2015

How to build up the actionable knowledge base: the role of 'best fit' framework synthesis for studies of improvement in healthcare.

Andrew Booth, Christopher Carroll

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 32 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 32 pooled it
–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

98 citing papers in PubMed, 32 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Conceptual framework for caregivers' quality of life and well-being supporting children with special health and medical needs in East Asia: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Factors influencing obesogenic behaviours of adolescent girls and women in low- and middle-income countries: A qualitative evidence synthesis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2021
    Pooled it
  17. Perceptions about cannabis use during pregnancy: a rapid best-framework qualitative synthesis.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2021
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Andrew BoothSchool of Health & Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK.
Christopher CarrollSchool of Health & Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing recognition of the role and value of theory in improvement work in healthcare offers the prospect of capitalising upon, and consolidating, actionable lessons from synthesis of improvement projects and initiatives. We propose that informed use of theory can (i) provide a mechanism by which to collect and organise data from a body of improvement work, (ii) offer a framework for analysis and identification of lessons learnt and (iii) facilitate an evaluation of the feasibility, effectiveness and acceptability of improvement programmes. Improvement practitioners can benefit from using an underpinning external structure as a lens by which to examine the specific achievements of their own projects alongside comparable initiatives led by others. We demonstrate the utility of a method known as 'best fit framework synthesis' (BFFS) in offering a ubiquitous and versatile means by which to collect, analyse and evaluate improvement work in healthcare. First reported in 2011, BFFS represents a pragmatic, flexible approach to integrating theory with findings from practice. A deductive phase, where a review team seeks to accommodate a substantial part of the data, is followed by an inductive phase, in which the team explores data not accommodated by the framework. We explore the potential for BFFS within improvement work by drawing upon the evidence synthesis methodology literature and practical examples of improvement work reported in BMJ Quality and Safety (2011-2015). We suggest four variants of BFFS that may have particular value in synthesising a body of improvement work. We conclude that BFFS, alongside other approaches that seek to optimise the contribution of theory to improvement work, represents one important enabling mechanism by which to establish the rigour and scientific credentials of the emerging discipline of 'improvement science'.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeKnowledge BasesQuality ImprovementDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHealth Services ResearchHumansEvaluation methodologyHealth services researchImplementation scienceQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID26306609
PMCPMC4680127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.