Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40051505›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2024

What is improvement science, and what makes it different? An outline of the field and its frontiers.

Julie E Reed, Grazia Antonacci, Natalie Armstrong, G Ross Baker, Sonya Crowe, Karin Pukk Harenstam, Dougal Hargreaves, Yogini H Jani, Lloyd Provost, Martin Rejler and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. An introduction to implementation science in rehabilitation medicine.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

14 authors.

Julie E ReedSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Grazia AntonacciSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Natalie ArmstrongDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
G Ross BakerInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sonya CroweClinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Karin Pukk HarenstamMedical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet (KI), Solna, Sweden.
Dougal HargreavesImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Yogini H JaniCentre for Medicines Optimisation Research & Education, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Lloyd ProvostAssociates in Process Improvement, Austin, TX, United States.
Martin RejlerSchool of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.
Carl SavageMedical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet (KI), Solna, Sweden.
Johan ThorSchool of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.
Sharon WilliamsSchool of Health and Social Care, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.
Thomas WoodcockSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improvement science has emerged as an interdisciplinary field of enquiry to provide methodological and scientific rigour to the practice and study of improvements in healthcare, and with contributions from a wide range of stakeholders and perspectives. However, compared to more well-established health-related sciences, the science of improvement remains in relative infancy. Whilst the improvement community has grown considerably, there is no existing articulation of the scope of what matters to the health and social care improvement community, and how this aligns to the enquiries of the field of improvement science. This paper aims to outline key areas of interest to the improvement community, and to propose distinguishing features of improvement science that help differentiate it from other areas of enquiry. Two over-arching research questions are identified, along with ten associated areas of enquiry which are grouped into three clusters: (1) improvement in practice, (2) aligning improvement efforts and (3) advancing the contribution of the improvement community. Four features that collectively define and distinguish the field of improvement science are proposed. The outline of the improvement landscape provides a common language for the diverse improvement community, supporting people to transcend disciplinary interests and constraints, and to consider how, collectively, we can improve health and care. Others are invited to refine and advance mapping of the improvement landscape by identifying gaps and increasing contributions from diverse perspectives.

Indexed as

complex systemhealthcareimplementation sceinceimprovement scienceknowledge mobilisationpatient safetyquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID40051505
PMCPMC11884242

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.