ArticleHealth research policy and systems2023
'The objective was about not blaming one another': a qualitative study to explore how collaboration is experienced within quality improvement collaboratives in Ethiopia.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of an environmental cleaning program improvement toolkit at a tertiary care hospital in Nigeria.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuality improvement collaboratives are a common approach to improving quality of care. They rely on collaboration across and within health facilities to enable and accelerate quality improvement. Originating in high-income settings, little is known about how collaboration transfers to low-income settings, despite the widespread use of these collaboratives.
methodWe explored collaboration within quality improvement collaboratives in Ethiopia through 42 in-depth interviews with staff of two hospitals and four health centers and three with quality improvement mentors. Data were analysed thematically using a deductive and inductive approach.
resultsThere was collaboration at learning sessions though experience sharing, co-learning and peer pressure. Respondents were used to a blaming environment, which they contrasted to the open and non-blaming environment at the learning sessions. Respondents formed new relationships that led to across facility practical support. Within facilities, those in the quality improvement team continued to collaborate through the plan-do-study-act cycles, although this required high engagement and support from mentors. Few staff were able to attend learning sessions and within facility transfer of quality improvement knowledge was rare. This affected broader participation and led to some resentment and resistance. Improved teamwork skills and behaviors occurred at individual rather than facility or systems level, with implications for sustainability. Challenges to collaboration included unequal participation, lack of knowledge transfer, high workloads, staff turnover and a culture of dependency.
conclusionWe conclude that collaboration can occur and is valued within a traditionally hierarchical system, but may require explicit support at learning sessions and by mentors. More emphasis is needed on ensuring quality improvement knowledge transfer, buy-in and system level change. This could include a modified collaborative design to provide facility-level support for spread.
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.