Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31831551›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Scoping review study to identify how communities in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada use quality improvement (QI) approaches to address community health and well-being.

Tara Carr, Mallory Wolfe Turner, Rohit Ramaswamy

Abstract readComparative StudyScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The relationship between Indigenous health and relevant sector Standards in Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, and Canada: a scoping review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    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

3 authors.

Tara CarrNutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Mallory Wolfe TurnerMaternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA malwolfe@email.unc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6807-7894
Rohit RamaswamyPublic Health Leadership and Maternal and Child Health, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBoth US and global communities lag on key health indicators. There has been limited progress in building capacity to improve health beyond the healthcare field. Yet, communities also need to engage in health improvement initiatives. A substantial body of literature describes standards and core components for quality improvement (QI) approaches in clinical settings. This study aims to determine how communities in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada use QI approaches for health and well-being improvement and how such approaches compare to those in clinical settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We developed a study protocol based on scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley, methodological advancements for scoping studies (Levac ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We developed this protocol to systematically conduct a scoping review of how US communities use QI approaches to address community health and well-being. Results will benefit multiple stakeholders by informing how to better support, design and evaluate community well-being improvement interventions. Results will be distributed through peer-reviewed journals, conferences, presentations and a public health graduate course.

Indexed as

Public HealthAustraliaCanadaHumansNew ZealandQuality ImprovementUnited Statescommunityhealthinterventionquality improvementwell-being

Identifiers

PMID31831551
PMCPMC6924873

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.