Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27716364›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2016

Development and validation of a survey to measure features of clinical networks.

Bernadette Bea Brown, Mary Haines, Sandy Middleton, Christine Paul, Catherine D'Este, Emily Klineberg, Elizabeth Elliott, Clinical Networks Research Group

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2016. 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

8 authors.

Bernadette Bea BrownSax Institute, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Australia.
Mary HainesSax Institute, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Australia.
Sandy MiddletonNursing Research Institute, St. Vincent's Health Australia (Sydney) and Australian Catholic University, Executive Suite, Level 5, St Vincent's Hospital, deLacy Building, Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, NSW, 2010, Australia. Sandy.Middleton@acu.edu.au.
Christine PaulSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour & Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Catherine D'EsteNational Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health, Research School of Population Health, ANU College of Medicine, Biology & Environment, Australian National University, Building 62, Cnr of Eggleston and Mills Roads, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
Emily KlinebergNew South Wales Health, 73 Miller Street, North Sydney, NSW, 2060, Australia.
Elizabeth ElliottSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Clinical Networks Research Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNetworks of clinical experts are increasingly being implemented as a strategy to improve health care processes and outcomes and achieve change in the health system. Few are ever formally evaluated and, when this is done, not all networks are equally successful in their efforts. There is a need to formatively assess the strategic and operational management and leadership of networks to identify where functioning could be improved to maximise impact. This paper outlines the development and psychometric evaluation of an Internet survey to measure features of clinical networks and provides descriptive results from a sample of members of 19 diverse clinical networks responsible for evidence-based quality improvement across a large geographical region.

methodsInstrument development was based on: a review of published and grey literature; a qualitative study of clinical network members; a program logic framework; and consultation with stakeholders. The resulting domain structure was validated for a sample of 592 clinical network members using confirmatory factor analysis. Scale reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. A summary score was calculated for each domain and aggregate level means and ranges are reported.

resultsThe instrument was shown to have good construct validity across seven domains as demonstrated by a high level of internal consistency, and all Cronbach's α coefficients were equal to or above 0.75. In the survey sample of network members there was strong reported commitment and belief in network-led quality improvement initiatives, which were perceived to have improved quality of care (72.8 %) and patient outcomes (63.2 %). Network managers were perceived to be effective leaders and clinical co-chairs were perceived as champions for change. Perceived external support had the lowest summary score across the seven domains.

conclusionsThis survey, which has good construct validity and internal reliability, provides a valid instrument to use in future research related to clinical networks. The survey will be of use to health service managers to identify strengths and areas where networks can be improved to increase effectiveness and impact on quality of care and patient outcomes. Equally, the survey could be adapted for use in the assessment of other types of networks.

Indexed as

Factor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansInterprofessional RelationsLeadershipMaleMedical InformaticsMedicineNew South WalesPsychometricsQualitative ResearchReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical networksEngagementExternal supportLeadershipOrganisational changeReliabilityStrategic managementSurveyValidity

Identifiers

PMID27716364
PMCPMC5045605

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.