Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33794046›Full record

ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021

A mapping and synthesis of tools for stakeholder and community engagement in quality improvement initiatives for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health.

Jessie Spencer, Brynne Gilmore, Elsbet Lodenstein, Anayda Portela

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Jessie SpencerDivision of Public Health, Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine, Flint, MI, USA.
Brynne GilmoreUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-4496-9254
Elsbet LodensteinKIT Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Anayda PortelaDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6368-1585
Royal Tropical Institute · NLUniversity College Dublin · IEUniversity of Michigan–Flint · USWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStakeholder and community engagement promotes collaboration and gives service users an opportunity to actively participate in the care they receive. Recognizing this potential, The Network for Improving Quality of Care for maternal, newborn and child health aimed to identify tools and operational guidance to integrate stakeholder and community engagement into quality improvement (QI) implementation.

methodsA mapping, consisting of a literature review and an open call through email and listservers, for implementation tools was conducted. Materials were included if they provided guidance on stakeholder and community engagement aligned to the Network's QI framework comprising seven phases. Screening of tools was done by two reviewers.

resultsThe literature search and the call for tools returned 197 documents with 70 tools included after screening. Most included tools (70%) were published after 2010. International organizations were the most frequently cited authors of tools. Only 15 tools covered all seven phases of the QI framework; few tools covered the more 'technical' phase of the QI framework: adapting standards and refining strategies.

conclusionThe quantity of tools and their varied characteristics including types of stakeholder and community engagement processes across the QI framework confirms that engagement cannot be captured in a 'one-size-fits-all' formula. Many tools were designed with a generic focus to allow for adaption and use in different settings and sectors. Country programmes looking to strengthen engagement approaches can take advantage of available tools through an online portal on the WHO website and adapt them to meet their specific needs and context. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Programme implementers provided tools and resources during data collection.

Indexed as

Adolescent HealthQuality ImprovementAdolescentChildChild HealthFamilyHumansInfant, Newbornchild and adolescent healthmaternalnewbornquality improvementquality of carestakeholder and community engagement

Identifiers

PMID33794046
PMCPMC8235899
OpenAlexW3148648476

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.