ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Exploring a Co-Designed Approach for Healthcare Quality Improvement-Learning Through Developmental Evaluation.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare setting teams were challenged to understand how and what to measure regarding healthcare quality improvement (HQI), who should be involved, and what approach to apply. We aimed to determine if a generic co-design approach involving patients/families, multi-disciplinary care providers, and other staff was feasible to apply for HQI across diverse care settings. Developmental evaluation embedded in the co-design approach would determine its effectiveness, challenges, and other experiences across care settings and teams.
methodsTwenty-two acute and community care settings agreed to participate in applying a phased co-design approach to their HQI initiatives, including developmental evaluation. Each care setting team received co-design orientation and support. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with patient/family advisors (PFAs) and care setting staff/care providers to gather their experiences with the co-design approach applied to their phased HQI work. Transcripts were thematically analyzed and triangulated with observation notes of care setting team discussions. Experiences were gathered from 17 PFAs and 68 staff/care providers across the 22 participating healthcare settings.
resultsThemes for the orientation and each phase emphasized the importance of participants' understanding, engagement, and ongoing open communication throughout the HQI co-design process. The orientation was viewed as key to facilitating good outcomes. Participants valued working together, gathering real-time experiences to "make a difference", and having PFA voices involved in co-designing the HQI initiatives. Challenges were identified, including time commitment.
conclusionsBased on the overall developmental evaluation findings, there was consensus that a generic co-design of HQI initiatives was effective, feasible, and sustainable across care settings.
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.