ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2016
How do we learn about improving health care: a call for a new epistemological paradigm.
Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality improvement into practice.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Article
- Article
- Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565-'Better Health Care: how do we learn about improvement?'International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2018Article
- A framework for learning about improvement: embedded implementation and evaluation design to optimize learning.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2018Article
- Healthcare improvement measures in risk management and patient satisfaction.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2018Article
- Time for the two-spirits: Shaping the inclusive policy environment for hispanics and transgenders through global health diplomacy.Journal of family medicine and primary careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe field of improving health care has been achieving more significant results in outcomes at scale in recent years. This has raised legitimate questions regarding the rigor, attribution, generalizability and replicability of the results. This paper describes the issue and outlines questions to be addressed in order to develop an epistemological paradigm that responds to these questions. QUESTIONS: We need to consider the following questions: (i) Did the improvements work? (ii) Why did they work? (iii) How do we know that the results can be attributed to the changes made? (iv) How can we replicate them? (Note, the goal is not to copy what was done, but to affect factors that can yield similar results in a different context.) NEXT STEPS: Answers to these questions will help improvers find ways to increase the rigor of their improvements, attribute the results to the changes made and better understand what is context specific and what is generalizable about the improvement.
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.