ArticlePreventive medicine2019
Understanding quality improvement collaboratives through an implementation science lens.
Article in Preventive medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 27 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.
Scaling up the Med-South Lifestyle Program to Reduce Chronic Disease in Partnership With Rural Communities: Phase 1
Scaling up the Med-South Lifestyle Program to Reduce Chronic Disease in Partnership With Rural Communities: Phase 2
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Understanding how and why audits work in improving the quality of hospital care: A systematic realist review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Working to enhance HIV care: integrating implementation science and improvement science for effective quality improvement - a scoping review.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Scaling what works: a collaborative capacity-building program tailored to optimize resources and scale evidence-based interventions for cancer prevention and control.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- The development of national learning collaborative for ePRO enabled RSM in oncology: insights for co-implementation.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Harnessing Implementation Science to Reform Juvenile Services: A Roadmap for Change.Journal of applied juvenile justice services · 2026Article
- "It really is HPV that's pulling us down": Findings from a health plan quality improvement learning collaborative targeting the HEDIS IMA measure.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- A learning health systems approach to implementation and evaluation of an academic emergency department single shared note workflow.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- Evaluation of four learning collaboratives for improving diagnostic excellence in radiology.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- Novel strategies to FIND people living with genetic dyslipidemias: The family heart foundation flag, identify, network, and deliver (FIND) familial hypercholesterolemia collaborative learning network.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Review
- Site engagement in implementation research: Introducing SEAMLIS as a conceptual and measurement framework.Health & justice · 2025Article
- Integrating Social Needs into Health Care: An Implementation Science Perspective.Annual review of public health · 2025Review
- Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs in Switzerland - Quo Vadis?International journal of public health · 2025Article
- Community Organizations, Local Health Equity Action Teams, and a Learning Collaborative to Address COVID-19 Disparities in Urban and Rural Communities.American journal of public health · 2024Article
- Collaborative implementation of an evidence-based package of integrated primary mental healthcare using quality improvement within a learning health systems approach: Lessons from the Mental health INTegration programme in South Africa.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Virtual quality improvement collaborative with primary care practices during COVID-19: a case study within a clinically integrated network.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- The Irish national chronic obstructive pulmonary disease quality improvement collaborative: an adaptive learning collaborative.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Twenty years of capacity building across the cancer prevention and control research network.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Review
- A mixed-method approach to generate and deliver rapid-cycle evaluation feedback: lessons learned from a multicenter implementation trial in pediatric surgery.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Rapid start antiretroviral therapies for improved engagement in HIV care: implementation science evaluation protocol.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Connecting the science and practice of implementation - applying the lens of context to inform study design in implementation research.Frontiers in health services · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) have long been used to facilitate group learning and implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in healthcare. However, few studies systematically describe implementation strategies linked to QIC success. To address this gap, we evaluated a QIC on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) by aligning standardized implementation strategies with collaborative activities and measuring implementation and effectiveness outcomes. In 2018, the American Cancer Society and North Carolina Community Health Center Association provided funding, in-person/virtual training, facilitation, and audit and feedback with the goal of building FQHC capacity to enact selected implementation strategies. The QIC evaluation plan included a pre-test/post-test single group design and mixed methods data collection. We assessed: 1) adoption, 2) engagement, 3) implementation of QI tools and CRC screening EBIs, and 4) changes in CRC screening rates. A post-collaborative focus group captured participants' perceptions of implementation strategies. Twenty-three percent of North Carolina FQHCs (9/40) participated in the collaborative. Health Center engagement was high although individual participation decreased over time. Teams completed all four QIC tools: aim statements, process maps, gap and root cause analysis, and Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. FQHCs increased their uptake of evidence-based CRC screening interventions and rates increased 8.0% between 2017 and 2018. Focus group findings provided insights into participants' opinions regarding the feasibility and appropriateness of the implementation strategies and how they influenced outcomes. Results support the collaborative's positive impact on FQHC capacity to implement QI tools and EBIs to improve CRC screening rates.
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.