Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37286326›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Qualitative study of international key informants' perspectives on the current and future state of healthcare quality measurement and feedback.

Candice Donnelly, Anna Janssen, Kavisha Shah, Paul Harnett, Shalini Vinod, Tim J Shaw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Uganda's evolving national biosafety system: lessons from the past 30 years.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    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

6 authors.

Candice DonnellyFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia candice.kielly-carroll@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4398-2908
Anna JanssenFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kavisha ShahFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Paul HarnettFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Shalini VinodLiverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8075-6219
Tim J ShawFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study is to explore the current and future state of quality measurement and feedback and identify factors influencing measurement feedback systems, including the barriers and enablers to their effective design, implementation, use and translation into quality improvement.

designThis qualitative study used semistructured interviews with key informants. A deductive framework analysis was conducted to code transcripts to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). An inductive analysis was used to produce subthemes and belief statements within each TDF domain.

settingAll interviews were conducted by videoconference and audio-recorded.

participantsKey informants were purposively sampled experts in quality measurement and feedback, including clinical (n=5), government (n=5), research (n=4) and health service leaders (n=3) from Australia (n=7), the USA (n=4), the UK (n=2), Canada (n=2) and Sweden (n=2).

resultsA total of 17 key informants participated in the study. The interview length ranged from 48 to 66 min. 12 theoretical domains populated by 38 subthemes were identified as relevant to measurement feedback systems. The most populous domains included

conclusionsMultiple factors were found to influence measurement feedback systems and future considerations are presented within this manuscript. The barriers and enablers that impact these systems are complex. While there are some clear modifiable factors in the design of measurement and feedback processes, influential factors described by key informants were largely socioenvironmental. Evidence-based design and implementation, coupled with a deeper understanding of the implementation context, may lead to enhanced quality measurement feedback systems and ultimately improved care delivery and patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareQuality of Health CareCanadaFeedbackHumansQualitative ResearchHEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENTQUALITATIVE RESEARCHQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID37286326
PMCPMC10255202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.