Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38050180›Full record

ReviewBMJ quality & safety2024

Quality and reporting of large-scale improvement programmes: a review of maternity initiatives in the English NHS, 2010-2023.

James McGowan, Bothaina Attal, Isla Kuhn, Lisa Hinton, Tim Draycott, Graham P Martin, Mary Dixon-Woods

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ quality & safety, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. The Role of Ethnicity and Migration in Perinatal Inequalities: A Retrospective Cohort Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

James McGowanThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6963-4106
Bothaina AttalThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3650-7415
Isla KuhnThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2879-4020
Lisa HintonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6082-3151
Tim DraycottDepartment of Women's Health, North Bristol NHS Trust, Westbury on Trym, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1825-4864
Graham P MartinThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1979-7577
Mary Dixon-WoodsThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK md753@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5915-0041
University of Cambridge · GBNorth Bristol NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge-scale improvement programmes are a frequent response to quality and safety problems in health systems globally, but have mixed impact. The extent to which they meet criteria for programme quality, particularly in relation to transparency of reporting and evaluation, is unclear.

aimTo identify large-scale improvement programmes focused on intrapartum care implemented in English National Health Service maternity services in the period 2010-2023, and to conduct a structured quality assessment.

methodsWe drew on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidance to inform the design and reporting of our study. We identified relevant programmes using multiple search strategies of grey literature, research databases and other sources. Programmes that met a prespecified definition of improvement programme, that focused on intrapartum care and that had a retrievable evaluation report were subject to structured assessment using selected features of programme quality.

resultsWe identified 1434 records via databases and other sources. 14 major initiatives in English maternity services could not be quality assessed due to lack of a retrievable evaluation report. Quality assessment of the 15 improvement programmes meeting our criteria for assessment found highly variable quality and reporting. Programme specification was variable and mostly low quality. Only eight reported the evidence base for their interventions. Description of implementation support was poor and none reported customisation for challenged services. None reported reduction of inequalities as an explicit goal. Only seven made use of explicit patient and public involvement practices, and only six explicitly used published theories/models/frameworks to guide implementation. Programmes varied in their reporting of the planning, scope and design of evaluation, with weak designs evident.

conclusionsPoor transparency of reporting and weak or absent evaluation undermine large-scale improvement programmes by limiting learning and accountability. This review indicates important targets for improving quality in large-scale programmes.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesQuality ImprovementState MedicineEnglandFemaleHumansPregnancyProgram Evaluationhealthcare quality improvementhealth policyhealth services researchobstetrics and gynecologywomens health

Identifiers

PMID38050180
PMCPMC11503041
OpenAlexW4389154672

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.