Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34635106›Full record

ReviewHealth research policy and systems2021

What do end-users want to know about managing the performance of healthcare delivery systems? Co-designing a context-specific and practice-relevant research agenda.

Jenna M Evans, Julie E Gilbert, Jasmine Bacola, Victoria Hagens, Vicky Simanovski, Philip Holm, Rebecca Harvey, Peter G Blake, Garth Matheson

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health research policy and systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jenna M EvansDeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4M4, Canada. Jenna.Evans@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3104-9889
Julie E GilbertInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jasmine BacolaOntario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Victoria HagensOntario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Vicky SimanovskiOntario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Philip HolmOntario Health (Ontario Renal Network), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Rebecca HarveyOntario Health (Ontario Renal Network), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Peter G BlakeOntario Health (Ontario Renal Network), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Garth MathesonOntario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Cancer Care Ontario · CAOntario Stroke Network · CALondon Health Sciences Centre · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite increasing interest in joint research priority-setting, few studies engage end-user groups in setting research priorities at the intersection of the healthcare and management disciplines. With health systems increasingly establishing performance management programmes to account for and incentivize performance, it is important to conduct research that is actionable by the end-users involved with or impacted by these programmes. The aim of this study was to co-design a research agenda on healthcare performance management with and for end-users in a specific jurisdictional and policy context.

methodsWe undertook a rapid review of the literature on healthcare performance management (n = 115) and conducted end-user interviews (n = 156) that included a quantitative ranking exercise to prioritize five directions for future research. The quantitative rankings were analysed using four methods: mean, median, frequency ranked first or second, and frequency ranked fifth. The interview transcripts were coded inductively and analysed thematically to identify common patterns across participant responses.

resultsSeventy-three individual and group interviews were conducted with 156 end-users representing diverse end-user groups, including administrators, clinicians and patients, among others. End-user groups prioritized different research directions based on their experiences and information needs. Despite this variation, the research direction on motivating performance improvement had the highest overall mean ranking and was most often ranked first or second and least often ranked fifth. The research direction was modified based on end-user feedback to include an explicit behaviour change lens and stronger consideration for the influence of context.

conclusionsJoint research priority-setting resulted in a practice-driven research agenda capable of generating results to inform policy and management practice in healthcare as well as contribute to the literature. The results suggest that end-users are keen to open the "black box" of performance management to explore more nuanced questions beyond "does performance management work?" End-users want to know how, when and why performance management contributes to behaviour change (or fails to) among front-line care providers.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth FacilitiesHumansBehaviour changeEmbedded researchHealthcareNetwork governancePerformance feedbackPerformance incentivesPerformance managementResearch co-designResearch priority-setting

Identifiers

PMID34635106
PMCPMC8504563
OpenAlexW3207255147

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.