ArticleiScience2023
From quality improvement to equality improvement projects: A scoping review and framework.
Article in iScience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Facilitating quality improvement activities related to newborn care in low- and middle-income countries: challenges and possible solutions.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2026Review
- Development of a Comprehensive Tool to Assess Rigor When Evaluating Quality Improvement Projects.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Improving maternal healthcare further in China at a time of low maternal mortality.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- Integrating causal pathway diagrams into practice facilitation to address colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Health equity assessment of machine learning performance (HEAL): a framework and dermatology AI model case study.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasing awareness of health disparities has led to proposals for a pay-for-equity scheme. Implementing such proposals requires systematic methods of collecting and reporting health outcomes for targeted demographics over time. This lays the foundation for a shift from quality improvement projects (QIPs) to equality improvement projects (EQIPs) that could evaluate adherence to standards and progress toward health equity. We performed a scoping review on EQIPs to inform a new framework for quality improvement through a health equity lens. Forty studies implemented an intervention after identifying a disparity compared to 149 others which merely identified group differences. Most evaluated race-based differences and were conducted at the institutional level, with representation in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. EQIPs that improved equity leveraged multidisciplinary expertise, healthcare staff education, and developed tools to track health outcomes continuously. EQIPs can help bridge the inequality gap and form part of an incentivized systematic equality improvement framework.
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.