Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27909040›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Association between organisational and workplace cultures, and patient outcomes: systematic review protocol.

J Braithwaite, J Herkes, K Ludlow, G Lamprell, L Testa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Differences in Antibiotic Decision-making Between Acute Surgical and Acute Medical Teams: An Ethnographic Study of Culture and Team Dynamics.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2019
    Observational
  13. Antibiotic Stewardship-Twenty Years in the Making.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

5 authors.

J BraithwaiteCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
J HerkesCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
K LudlowCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
G LamprellCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
L TestaCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite widespread interest in the topic, no current synthesis of research is available analysing the linkages between organisational or workplace cultures on the one hand, and patient outcomes on the other. This protocol proposes a systematic review to analyse and synthesise the literature to date on this topic. The resulting review will discuss characteristics of included studies in terms of the type of healthcare settings researched, the measurements of organisational and workplace culture, patient outcomes measured and the influence of these cultures on patient outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be conducted aiming to examine the associations between organisational and workplace cultures, and patient outcomes, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. An English language search of abstracts will be executed using the following academic databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science and PsycINFO. The review will include relevant peer-reviewed articles from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before and after studies, interrupted time series studies, cross-sectional analyses, qualitative studies and mixed-method studies. Multiple researchers will be involved in assessing the quality of articles for inclusion in the review. This protocol documents a detailed search strategy, including terms and inclusion criteria, which will form the basis of the subsequent systematic review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

Indexed as

Organizational CultureOutcome Assessment, Health CareSystematic Reviews as TopicDatabases, BibliographicDelivery of Health CareHumansResearch DesignWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID27909040
PMCPMC5168669

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.