Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28982818›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Impact of policy support on uptake of evidence-based continuous quality improvement activities and the quality of care for Indigenous Australians: a comparative case study.

Ross Bailie, Veronica Matthews, Sarah Larkins, Sandra Thompson, Paul Burgess, Tarun Weeramanthri, Jodie Bailie, Frances Cunningham, Ru Kwedza, Louise Clark

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Bridging the Knowledge Gap for Pressure Injury Management in Nursing Homes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  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

10 authors.

Ross BailieUniversity Centre for Rural Health-North Coast, School of Rural Health, University of Sydney, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia.
Veronica MatthewsUniversity Centre for Rural Health-North Coast, School of Rural Health, University of Sydney, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia.
Sarah LarkinsCollege of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Sandra ThompsonWestern Australian Centre for Rural Health, University of Western Australia, Geraldton, Western Australia, Australia.
Paul BurgessNorthern Territory Department of Health and Families, Darwin, Australia.
Tarun WeeramanthriDepartment of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Jodie BailieUniversity Centre for Rural Health-North Coast, School of Rural Health, University of Sydney, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia.
Frances CunninghamMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, Australia.
Ru KwedzaSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Louise ClarkMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine the impact of state/territory policy support on (1) uptake of evidence-based continuous quality improvement (CQI) activities and (2) quality of care for Indigenous Australians.

designMixed-method comparative case study methodology, drawing on quality-of-care audit data, documentary evidence of policies and strategies and the experience and insights of stakeholders involved in relevant CQI programmes. We use multilevel linear regression to analyse jurisdictional differences in quality of care.

settingIndigenous primary healthcare services across five states/territories of Australia.

participants175 Indigenous primary healthcare services.

interventionsA range of national and state/territory policy and infrastructure initiatives to support CQI, including support for applied research. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: (i) Trends in the consistent uptake of evidence-based CQI tools available through a research-based CQI initiative (the Audit and Best Practice in Chronic Disease programme) and (ii) quality of care (as reflected in adherence to best practice guidelines).

resultsProgressive uptake of evidence-based CQI activities and steady improvements or maintenance of high-quality care occurred where there was long-term policy and infrastructure support for CQI. Where support was provided but not sustained there was a rapid rise and subsequent fall in relevant CQI activities.

conclusionsHealth authorities should ensure consistent and sustained policy and infrastructure support for CQI to enable wide-scale and ongoing improvement in quality of care and, subsequently, health outcomes. It is not sufficient for improvement initiatives to rely on local service managers and clinicians, as their efforts are strongly mediated by higher system-level influences.

Indexed as

Health PolicyAustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesCase-Control StudiesChronic DiseaseHealth Services, IndigenousHumansLinear ModelsPrimary Health CareQuality ImprovementAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander healthcontinuous quality improvementhealth policyprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID28982818
PMCPMC5639983

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.