ArticleSystematic reviews2017
The influence of contextual factors on healthcare quality improvement initiatives: what works, for whom and in what setting? Protocol for a realist review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 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
56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Staff perspectives on the implementation of interventions for people with congenital disabilities: a mixed-methods systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- A realist synthesis of staff-based primary health care interventions addressing universal health coverage.Journal of global health · 2022Pooled it
- Scoping review of instruments measuring organizational context in implementation studies within healthcare.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Operational challenges and adaptive leadership in emergency departments in the United States of America: a mixed-methods analysis.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- The ActiveText@T2D text messaging behavioural intervention to increase physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes: A prospective single-arm feasibility trial.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Transforming Healthcare Through Value: A Fiscal Perspective on OECD Countries.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Article
- Contextual Deprivation, Race and Ethnicity, and Income in Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Siloed mentality, health system suboptimization and the healthcare symphony: a Canadian perspective.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Barriers and enablers for externally and internally driven implementation processes in healthcare: a qualitative cross-case study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- The influence of contextual factors on an intervention for people with disabilities from support persons' and health personnel's perspectives: a focus group study.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Article
- A cross-organizational Lean deployment in an Italian regional healthcare system.International journal of health care quality assurance · 2023Article
- Exploring the impact of evaluation on learning and health innovation sustainability: protocol for a realist synthesis.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Contextual factors influencing the roles of patent medicine vendors in the provision of injectable contraception services in Nigeria.Reproductive health · 2023Article
- Pathways to scale up early childhood programs: A scoping review of Reach Up and Care for Child Development.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Role and use of evidence in health system response to COVID-19 in Nigeria: a mixed method study.The Pan African medical journal · 2023Review
- Towards better understanding of workplace factors contributing to hospitalist burden and burnout prior to COVID-19 pandemic.Applied ergonomics · 2023Article
- Assessing healthcare capacity crisis preparedness: development of an evaluation tool by a Canadian health authority.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundContext shapes the effectiveness of knowledge implementation and influences health improvement. Successful healthcare quality improvement (QI) initiatives frequently fail to transfer to different settings, with local contextual factors often cited as the cause. Understanding and overcoming contextual barriers is therefore crucial to implementing effective improvement; yet context is still poorly understood. There is a paucity of information on the mechanisms underlying how and why QI projects succeed or fail in given settings. A realist review of empirical studies of healthcare QI initiatives will be undertaken to examine the influence and impact of contextual factors on quality improvement in healthcare settings and explore whether QI initiatives can work in all contexts.
methodsThe review will explore which contextual factors are important, and how, why, when and for whom they are important, within varied settings. The dynamic nature of context and change over time will be explored by examining which aspects of context impact at key points in the improvement trajectory. The review will also consider the influence of context on improvement outcomes (provider- and patient-level), spread and sustainability. The review process will follow five iterative steps: (1) clarify scope, (2) search for evidence, (3) appraise primary studies and extract data, (4) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions and (5) disseminate findings. The reviewers will consult with experts and stakeholders in the early stages to focus the review and develop a programme theory consisting of explanatory 'context-mechanism-outcome' configurations. Searches for primary evidence will be conducted iteratively. Data will be extracted and tested against the programme theory. A review advisory group will oversee the review process. Review findings will follow RAMESES guidelines and will be disseminated via a report, presentations and peer-reviewed publications. DISCUSSION: The review will update and consolidate evidence on the contextual conditions for effective improvement and distil new knowledge to inform the design and development of context-sensitive QI initiatives. This review ties in with the study of improvement programmes as vehicles of change and the development of an evidence base around healthcare improvement by addressing whether QI initiatives can work in all contexts. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017062135.
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.