Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28830572›Full record

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.

Emma Coles, Mary Wells, Margaret Maxwell, Fiona M Harris, Julie Anderson, Nicola M Gray, Gill Milner, Stephen MacGillivray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A cross-organizational Lean deployment in an Italian regional healthcare system.International journal of health care quality assurance · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Emma ColesNursing Midwifery & Allied Health Professions Research Unit (NMAHP-RU), University of Stirling, Scion House, University of Stirling Innovation Park, Stirling, FK9 4NF, UK. emma.coles@stir.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9828-9014
Mary WellsNursing Midwifery & Allied Health Professions Research Unit (NMAHP-RU), University of Stirling, Scion House, University of Stirling Innovation Park, Stirling, FK9 4NF, UK.
Margaret MaxwellNursing Midwifery & Allied Health Professions Research Unit (NMAHP-RU), University of Stirling, Scion House, University of Stirling Innovation Park, Stirling, FK9 4NF, UK.
Fiona M HarrisNursing Midwifery & Allied Health Professions Research Unit (NMAHP-RU), University of Stirling, Scion House, University of Stirling Innovation Park, Stirling, FK9 4NF, UK.
Julie AndersonScottish Improvement Science Collaborating Centre (SISCC), School of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, 11 Airlie Place, Dundee, DD1 4HJ, UK.
Nicola M GrayScottish Improvement Science Collaborating Centre (SISCC), School of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, 11 Airlie Place, Dundee, DD1 4HJ, UK.
Gill MilnerScottish Improvement Science Collaborating Centre (SISCC), School of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, 11 Airlie Place, Dundee, DD1 4HJ, UK.
Stephen MacGillivrayNursing Midwifery & Allied Health Professions Research Unit (NMAHP-RU), University of Stirling, Scion House, University of Stirling Innovation Park, Stirling, FK9 4NF, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office NMAHP1
6 · The paper itself

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

Evidence-Based PracticeDelivery of Health CareHumansQuality ImprovementSystematic Reviews as TopicContextEvidence-based practiceHealthcareHealth improvementImplementationKnowledge translationQuality improvementRealist reviewRealist synthesis

Identifiers

PMID28830572
PMCPMC5568400

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.