Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35078776›Full record

ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2022

Towards a harmonised framework for developing quality of care indicators for global health: a scoping review of existing conceptual and methodological practices.

Lilian Dudley, Puni Mamdoo, Selvan Naidoo, Moise Muzigaba

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Developing quality measures for non-pharmacological prevention and rehabilitation in primary health care for chronic conditions: a consensus study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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.

Lilian DudleyDepartment of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa.
Puni MamdooDepartment of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa.
Selvan NaidooDepartment of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa.
Moise MuzigabaDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland mochemoseo@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4323-9217

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDespite significant advances in the science of quality of care measurement over the last decade, approaches to developing quality of care indicators for global health priorities are not clearly defined. We conducted a scoping review of concepts and methods used to develop quality of healthcare indicators to better inform ongoing efforts towards a more harmonised approach to quality of care indicator development in global health.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search of electronic databases, grey literature and references for articles on developing quality of care indicators for routine monitoring in all healthcare settings and populations, published in English between 2010 and 2020. We used well-established methods for article screening and selection, data extraction and management. Results were summarised using a descriptive analysis and a narrative synthesis.

resultsThe 221 selected articles were largely from high-income settings (89%), particularly the USA (46%), Canada (9%), UK (9%) and Europe (17%). Quality of care indicators were developed mainly for healthcare providers (56%), for benchmarking or quality assurance (37%) and quality improvement (29%), in hospitals (32%) and primary care (26%), across many diseases. The terms 'quality indicator' and 'quality measure' were the most frequently encountered terms (50% and 21%, respectively). Systematic approaches for quality of care indicator development emerged within national quality of care systems or through cross-country collaborations in high-income settings. Maternal, neonatal and child health (33%), mental health (26%) and primary care (57%) studies applied most components of systematic approaches, but not consistently or rigorously. DISCUSSION: The current evidence shows variations in concepts and approaches to developing quality of care indicators, with development and application mainly in high-income countries.

conclusionAdditional efforts are needed to propose 'best-practice' conceptual frameworks and methods for developing quality of care indicators to improve their utility in global health measurement.

Indexed as

Global HealthQuality Indicators, Health CareChildDelivery of Health CareHumansInfant, NewbornPrimary Health CareQuality Improvementcommon data elementshealth carehealthcarehealth information systemsoutcome and process assessmentoutcome assessmentpatient care

Identifiers

PMID35078776
PMCPMC8796246

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.