Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37815986›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2023

The aims and effectiveness of communities of practice in healthcare: A systematic review.

Alexander P Noar, Hannah E Jeffery, Hariharan Subbiah Ponniah, Usman Jaffer

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
21.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Co-Design of a Community of Practice for People With Personal and Professional Expertise or Interest in Dementia in Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alexander P NoarDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2180-9792
Hannah E JefferyDepartment of General Surgery, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Stevenage, United Kingdom.
Hariharan Subbiah PonniahDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5471-9120
Usman JafferDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2368-7496
Imperial College London · GBEast and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Communities of practice (CoPs) are defined as "groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise by interacting on an ongoing basis". They are an effective form of knowledge management that have been successfully used in the business sector and increasingly so in healthcare. In May 2023 the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched for primary research studies on CoPs published between 1st January 1950 and 31st December 2022. PRISMA guidelines were followed. The following search terms were used: community/communities of practice AND (healthcare OR medicine OR patient/s). The database search picked up 2009 studies for screening. Of these, 50 papers met the inclusion criteria. The most common aim of CoPs was to directly improve a clinical outcome, with 19 studies aiming to achieve this. In terms of outcomes, qualitative outcomes were the most common measure used in 21 studies. Only 11 of the studies with a quantitative element had the appropriate statistical methodology to report significance. Of the 9 studies that showed a statistically significant effect, 5 showed improvements in hospital-based provision of services such as discharge planning or rehabilitation services. 2 of the studies showed improvements in primary-care, such as management of hepatitis C, and 2 studies showed improvements in direct clinical outcomes, such as central line infections. CoPs in healthcare are aimed at improving clinical outcomes and have been shown to be effective. There is still progress to be made and a need for further studies with more rigorous methodologies, such as RCTs, to provide further support of the causality of CoPs on outcomes.

Indexed as

HospitalsPatient DischargeDelivery of Health CareHumans

Identifiers

PMID37815986
PMCPMC10564133
OpenAlexW4387504493

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.