Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30342511›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

One size fits none - a qualitative study investigating nine national quality registries' conditions for use in quality improvement, research and interaction with patients.

Vibeke Sparring, Emma Granström, Magna Andreen Sachs, Mats Brommels, Monica E Nyström

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Vibeke SparringDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, SE-17177, Stockholm, Sweden. vibeke.sparring@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1248-8600
Emma GranströmDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, SE-17177, Stockholm, Sweden.
Magna Andreen SachsDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, SE-17177, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mats BrommelsDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, SE-17177, Stockholm, Sweden.
Monica E NyströmDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, SE-17177, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSwedish National Quality Registries (NQRs) are observational clinical registries that have long been seen as an underused resource for research and quality improvement (QI) in health care. In recent years, NQRs have also been recognised as an area where patients can be involved, contributing with self-reported experiences and estimations of health effects. This study aimed to investigate what the registry management perceived as barriers and facilitators for the use of NQRs in QI, research, and interaction with patients, and main activities undertaken to enhance their use for these purposes. The aim was further to identify potential differences between various types of NQRs for their use in these areas.

methodsIn this multiple case study, nine NQRs were purposively selected. Interviews (n = 18) were conducted and analysed iteratively using conventional and directed content analysis.

resultsA recent national investment initiative enabled more intensive work with development areas previously identified by the NQR management teams. The recent focus on value-based health care and other contemporary national healthcare investments aiming at QI and public benchmarking were perceived as facilitating factors. Having to perform double registrations due to shortcomings in digital systems was perceived as a barrier, as was the lack of authority on behalf of the registry management to request participation in NQRs and QI activities based on registry outcomes. The registry management teams used three strategies to enhance the use of NQRs: ensuring registering of correct and complete data, ensuring updated and understandable information available for patients, clinicians, researchers and others stakeholders, and intensifying cooperation with them. Varied characteristics of the NQRs influenced their use, and the possibility to reach various end-users was connected to the focus area and context of the NQRs.

conclusionsThe recent national investment initiative contributed to already ongoing work to strengthen the use of NQRs. To further increase the use, the demands of stakeholders and end-users must be in focus, but also an understanding of the NQRs' various characteristics and challenges. The end-users may have in common a need for training in the methodology of registry based research and benchmarking, and how to be more patient-centred.

Indexed as

AgedBenchmarkingData AccuracyDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementRegistriesSwedenClinical databaseClinical registryNational quality registryPatient-centred careQuality improvementRegistry-based research

Identifiers

PMID30342511
PMCPMC6195992

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.