SynthesisBMJ open2017
Evaluating investment in quality improvement capacity building: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- Index hospital cost of adverse events following thoracic surgery: a systematic review of economic literature.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review of the evidence of how hospitals capture financial benefits of process improvement and the impact on hospital financial performance.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Benchmarking Drug Regulatory Systems for Capacity Building: An Integrative Review of Tools, Practice, and Recommendations.International journal of health policy and management · 2023Pooled it
- The development of the concept of return-on-investment from large-scale quality improvement programmes in healthcare: an integrative systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Identifying and understanding benefits associated with return-on-investment from large-scale healthcare Quality Improvement programmes: an integrative systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Assessing quality improvement capacity in primary care practices.BMC family practice · 2019Trial
- Development and Formative Assessment of an Innovative Blended Educational Course for Care of Small and Sick Neonates in India and SEARO Countries.Indian pediatrics · 2026Article
- Continuous quality improvement across a South Australian health service and the role it plays in a learning health system: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- The embedded research model: an answer to the research and evaluation needs of community service organizations?Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- How is return on investment from quality improvement programmes conceptualised by mental healthcare leaders and why: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2023Review
- Analyses of the return on investment of public health interventions: a scoping review and recommendations for future studies.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Perspectives of hospital pharmacists on quality improvement initiatives in patient care: A pilot study from one healthcare system in Canada.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- Mobilizing registry data for quality improvement: A convergent mixed-methods analysis and application to spinal cord injury.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023Article
- Factors influencing measurement for improvement skills in healthcare staff: trainee, and trainer perspectives.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- How to sustainably build capacity in quality improvement within a healthcare organisation: a deep-dive, focused qualitative analysis.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Capability building for large-scale transformational change: learning from an evaluation of a national programme.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- Multi-method evaluation of a national clinical fellowship programme to build leadership capacity for quality improvement.BMJ open quality · 2020Article
- Organizational Support in Healthcare Redesign Education: A Mixed-Methods Exploratory Study of Expert Coach and Executive Sponsor Experiences.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle fidelity: a retrospective mixed-methods study.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Article
- An "All Teach, All Learn" Approach to Research Capacity Strengthening in Indigenous Primary Health Care Continuous Quality Improvement.Frontiers in public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLeading health systems have invested in substantial quality improvement (QI) capacity building, but little is known about the aggregate effect of these investments at the health system level. We conducted a systematic review to identify key steps and elements that should be considered for system-level evaluations of investment in QI capacity building.
methodsWe searched for evaluations of QI capacity building and evaluations of QI training programmes. We included the most relevant indexed databases in the field and a strategic search of the grey literature. The latter included direct electronic scanning of 85 relevant government and institutional websites internationally. Data were extracted regarding evaluation design and common assessment themes and components.
results48 articles met the inclusion criteria. 46 articles described initiative-level non-economic evaluations of QI capacity building/training, while 2 studies included economic evaluations of QI capacity building/training, also at the initiative level. No system-level QI capacity building/training evaluations were found. We identified 17 evaluation components that fit within 5 overarching dimensions (characteristics of QI training; characteristics of QI activity; individual capacity; organisational capacity and impact) that should be considered in evaluations of QI capacity building. 8 key steps in return-on-investment (ROI) assessments in QI capacity building were identified: (1) planning-stakeholder perspective; (2) planning-temporal perspective; (3) identifying costs; (4) identifying benefits; (5) identifying intangible benefits that will not be included in the ROI estimation; (6) discerning attribution; (7) ROI calculations; (8) sensitivity analysis.
conclusionsThe literature on QI capacity building evaluation is limited in the number and scope of studies. Our findings, summarised in a
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.