Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29447410›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2018

Practical recommendations for the evaluation of improvement initiatives.

Gareth Parry, Astou Coly, Don Goldmann, Alexander K Rowe, Vijay Chattu, Deneil Logiudice, Mihajlo Rabrenovic, Bejoy Nambiar

RetractedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Successful Healthcare Improvements From Translating Evidence in complex systems (SHIFT-Evidence): simple rules to guide practice and research.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Reinstatement · 2018-02-16Error by Journal/Publisher · Retract and Replace · Temporary Removal · Removed · · article reinstated unknown date:
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Gareth ParryInstitute for Healthcare Improvement, 53 State Street, 19th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, USA.
Astou ColyUSAID Applying Science to Strengthen and Improve Systems (ASSIST) Project, University Research Co., LLC, Chevy Chase, MD, USA.
Don GoldmannInstitute for Healthcare Improvement, 53 State Street, 19th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, USA.
Alexander K RoweDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Building 24, Room 03-217, Mailstop A06, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, USA.
Vijay ChattuPublic Health and Primary Care Unit, Faculty of Medical Sciences, The University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago, School of Global Health & Bioethics, EUCLID University Champ Fleurs, Trinidad, West Indies.
Deneil LogiudiceQuality and Process Improvement Consultant.
Mihajlo RabrenovicFaculty of Business Economics and Entrepreneurship, Belgrade, Serbia.
Bejoy NambiarInstitute for Global Health, UCL, 30, Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A lack of clear guidance for funders, evaluators and improvers on what to include in evaluation proposals can lead to evaluation designs that do not answer the questions stakeholders want to know. These evaluation designs may not match the iterative nature of improvement and may be imposed onto an initiative in a way that is impractical from the perspective of improvers and the communities with whom they work. Consequently, the results of evaluations are often controversial, and attribution remains poorly understood. Improvement initiatives are iterative, adaptive and context-specific. Evaluation approaches and designs must align with these features, specifically in their ability to consider complexity, to evolve as the initiative adapts over time and to understand the interaction with local context. Improvement initiatives often identify broadly defined change concepts and provide tools for care teams to tailor these in more detail to local conditions. Correspondingly, recommendations for evaluation are best provided as broad guidance, to be tailored to the specifics of the initiative. In this paper, we provide practical guidance and recommendations that funders and evaluators can use when developing an evaluation plan for improvement initiatives that seeks to: identify the questions stakeholders want to address; develop the initial program theory of the initiative; identify high-priority areas to measure progress over time; describe the context the initiative will be applied within; and identify experimental or observational designs that will address attribution.

Indexed as

HumansInfantInfant MortalityModels, OrganizationalOrganizational InnovationProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID29447410
PMCPMC5909656

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.