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.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Clinical quality registries: Establishing the socio-technical infrastructure for learning health systems.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- How and why do community stakeholders participate in the national stroke audit in England? Findings from a mixed-method online survey.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Quality registry improves the data of chronic ulcers: Validation of Tampere Wound Registry.International wound journal · 2023Article
- Registry randomised trials: a methodological perspective.BMJ open · 2023Review
- Mobilizing registry data for quality improvement: A convergent mixed-methods analysis and application to spinal cord injury.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023Article
- Development and pilot implementation of Iranian Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome Registry.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Article
- Use and exchange of knowledge in the introduction of hospital-based home rehabilitation after a stroke: barriers and facilitators in change management.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Stakeholder views of the development of a clinical quality registry for interventional radiology: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Working with national quality registries in older people care: A qualitative study of perceived impact on assistant nurses' work situation.Nursing open · 2021Article
- Collection and use of EQ-5D for follow-up, decision-making, and quality improvement in health care - the case of the Swedish National Quality Registries.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2020Article
- The role of professional logics in quality register use: a realist evaluation.BMC health services research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.