Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26878037›Full record

ReviewEndoscopy international open2016

Barriers and facilitators to implementing continuous quality improvement programs in colonoscopy services: a mixed methods systematic review.

Bernard Candas, Gilles Jobin, Catherine Dubé, Mario Tousignant, Anis Ben Abdeljelil, Sonya Grenier, Marie-Pierre Gagnon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Endoscopy international open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Navigating the Second Victim Experience in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Colonoscopy.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The impact of a simplified documentation method for the Edmonton classification system for cancer pain (ECS-CP) on clinician utilization.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Bernard CandasInstitut d'excellence en santé et services sociaux du Québec, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada; Université Laval - Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Gilles JobinUniversité de Montréal - Department of Medicine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital - Gastroenterology, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Catherine DubéUniversity of Calgary - Department of Community Health Sciences, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Mario TousignantCHU de Québec Research Center - Public Health and Practice-Changing Research, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Anis Ben AbdeljelilCHU de Québec Research Center - Public Health and Practice-Changing Research, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Sonya GrenierCHU de Québec Research Center - Public Health and Practice-Changing Research, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Marie-Pierre GagnonUniversité Laval - Faculty of Nursing, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada; CHU de Québec Research Center - Population Health and Optimal Health Practices, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimContinuous quality improvement (CQI) programs may result in quality of care and outcome improvement. However, the implementation of such programs has proven to be very challenging. This mixed methods systematic review identifies barriers and facilitators pertaining to the implementation of CQI programs in colonoscopy services and how they relate to endoscopists, nurses, managers, and patients.

methodsWe developed a search strategy adapted to 15 databases. Studies had to report on the implementation of a CQI intervention and identified barriers or facilitators relating to any of the four groups of actors directly concerned by the provision of colonoscopies. The quality of the selected studies was assessed and findings were extracted, categorized, and synthesized using a generic extraction grid customized through an iterative process.

resultsWe extracted 99 findings from the 15 selected publications. Although involving all actors is the most cited factor, the literature mainly focuses on the facilitators and barriers associated with the endoscopists' perspective. The most reported facilitators to CQI implementation are perception of feasibility, adoption of a formative approach, training and education, confidentiality, and assessing a limited number of quality indicators. Receptive attitudes, a sense of ownership and perceptions of positive impacts also facilitate the implementation. Finally, an organizational environment conducive to quality improvement has to be inclusive of all user groups, explicitly supportive, and provide appropriate resources.

conclusionOur findings corroborate the current models of adoption of innovations. However, a significant knowledge gap remains with respect to barriers and facilitators pertaining to nurses, patients, and managers.

Identifiers

PMID26878037
PMCPMC4751006

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.