ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Adapting the MUSIQ Calculator for Practice Facilitators to Evaluate Primary Care Clinic Performance in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Quality Improvement Project.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ) is a framework designed to understand the contextual factors that can influence healthcare quality improvement (QI) initiative implementation. The MUSIQ calculator was originally developed to help clinics identify contextual factors that may affect QI success. This retrospective study adapted the MUSIQ calculator to serve as an evaluative tool for practice facilitators engaged in a colorectal cancer screening initiative. Eight primary care clinics were scored in 6 contextual factors categories using the adapted MUSIQ calculator. Average MUSIQ scores were used to identify high and low contextual factors clinics, and their colorectal cancer screening rates were assessed across a 4-year period of active engagement with the colorectal cancer screening initiative. There were statistically significant, strong, correlations between overall contextual factors scores and colorectal cancer screening rates across all 4 years. There was a statistically significant difference between screening rate changes during the period of active engagement and high or low contextual factors scores (
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.