Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33034559›Full record

Trial reportPreventing chronic disease2020

Quality Improvement Coaching for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage: A Process Evaluation in 3 States, 2018-2019.

Jennifer Leeman, Victoria Petermann, Jennifer Heisler-MacKinnon, Adam Bjork, Noel T Brewer, Brigid K Grabert, Melissa B Gilkey

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Preventing chronic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

7 authors.

Jennifer LeemanSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Carrington Hall, CB #7460, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7460. Email: jleeman@email.unc.edu.
Victoria PetermannSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Jennifer Heisler-MacKinnonDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Adam BjorkImmunization Services Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Noel T BrewerLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Brigid K GrabertLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Melissa B GilkeyLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Funding

Cancer Control Education ProgramT32CA057726 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Melissa B Gilkey, Melissa A. Troester · 2017 to 2026
$3.7M
ACL HHS U01IP001073NCI NIH HHS T32 CA057726NCIRD CDC HHS U01 IP001073
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PURPOSE AND

objectivesQuality improvement (QI) coaching improves human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage, but effects of coaching have been small, and little is known about how and when QI coaching works. To assess implementation outcomes and explore factors that might explain variation in outcomes, we conducted a process evaluation of a QI coaching intervention for HPV vaccination. INTERVENTION APPROACH: QI coaches received tools and training to support 4 core coaching competencies: 1) expertise in using clinic-level adolescent vaccination data to drive change, 2) knowledge of the evidence base to support change in HPV vaccination practice, 3) familiarity with improvement strategies and action planning, and 4) skill in building relationships. EVALUATION

methodsOur mixed methods evaluation involved collecting quantitative data through effort-tracking logs and gathering qualitative data through in-depth interviews with QI coaches (N = 11) who worked with 89 clinics in 3 US states. Data were collected on implementation outcomes and on contextual factors that might explain variations in those outcomes. Implementation outcomes included adoption by clinics, reach to providers and staff (ie, participation in the coaching visit), and implementation fidelity.

resultsStates achieved either high adoption or high reach, but not both. For example, state A had high adoption with 94% of clinics accepting a coaching visit, but low reach with a median of 1 participant per clinic. In contrast, state C had lower adoption (29%, P < .01) than state A but higher reach (median of 4 participants per clinic, P < .01). Generally, states had high coaching protocol fidelity with the exception of advising on strategies and action planning. QI coaches described factors that might explain these variations, including strength of relationships with clinic staff and whether they recruited clinics directly or through large clinic networks. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Our findings have implications for the design of future QI coaching initiatives, including how coaches recruit clinics to ensure full clinic engagement, refinements to coaching visits, and how QI coaches can effectively engage with clinic networks. Findings could inform future QI coaching interventions to strengthen their impact on public health.

Indexed as

AdolescentFemaleHumansMaleMentoringPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesPrimary Health CareProgram EvaluationQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementUnited StatesVaccination CoveragePapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID33034559
PMCPMC7553212

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.