ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2022
Factors Associated With Medical Staff's Engagement and Perception of a Quality Improvement Program for Acute Coronary Syndromes in Hospitals: A Nationally Representative Mixed-Methods Study in China.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Persistent Sex Disparities in Pre-Hospital Delay Among Patients With STEMI Despite Overall Improvements: Findings From the Chinese Cardiovascular Association Chest Pain Center Registry.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of dispatching EMS volunteers via "interconnected first-aid app" on the outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: protocol for a type II hybrid implementation-effectiveness study.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Medical staff represent critical stakeholders in the process of implementing a quality improvement (QI) program. Few studies, however, have examined factors that influence medical staff engagement and perception regarding QI programs. Methods and Results We conducted a nationally representative survey of a QI program in 6 cities in China. Quantitative data were analyzed using multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models, and qualitative data were analyzed using the framework method. The engagement of medical staff was significantly related to knowledge scores regarding the specific content of chest pain center accreditation (β=0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57). Higher scores for inner motivation (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.18-2.72) and resource support (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.24) and lower scores for implementation barriers (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98) were associated with improved treatment behaviors among medical staff. Resource support (OR, 4.52; 95% CI, 2.99-6.84) and lower complexity (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00) had positive effects on medical staff satisfaction, and respondents with improved treatment behaviors were more satisfied with the QI program. Similar findings were found for factors that influenced medical staff's assessment of QI program sustainability. The qualitative analysis further confirmed and supplemented the findings of quantitative analysis. Conclusions Clarifying and addressing factors associated with medical staff's engagement and perception of QI programs will allow further improvements in quality of care for patients with acute coronary syndrome. These findings may also be applicable to other QI programs in China and other low- and middle-income countries. Registration URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn/; Unique identifier: Chi-CTR2100043319.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.