Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40241054›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2025

The integration of quality improvement and implementation science methods and frameworks in healthcare: a systematic review.

Mia Bierbaum, Stephanie Best, Sharon Williams, Zoe Fehlberg, Susan Hillier, Louise A Ellis, Angie Goodrich, Robert Padbury, Peter Hibbert

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Design science research in quality improvement: Embedding rigour in digital health innovation.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025
    Article
  12. Palliative medicine reports · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors.

Mia BierbaumAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Stephanie BestUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Sharon WilliamsSwansea University, Swansea, Wales.
Zoe FehlbergUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Susan HillierUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Louise A EllisAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Angie GoodrichSouthern Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, Australia.
Robert PadburySouthern Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, Australia.
Peter HibbertAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. peter.hibbert@mq.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesQuality Improvement (QI) and Implementation Science (IS) are both frequently utilised in health research. Little is known about how they are integrated within studies, and whether combined they add value. This systematic review sought to investigate how QI and IS theories and strategies are integrated within healthcare-based studies.

methodsA systematic search was conducted across five databases. Duplicates, studies published prior to 2014, systematic and scoping reviews, and study protocols were removed. The retrieved title abstracts were screened, and the full texts of eligible studies were reviewed in pairs using Covidence software. Of the included studies, data were extracted using a predefined template, and studies were critically appraised using the QI Minimum Quality Criteria Set. Frequency analysis of the use of QI or IS tools was conducted, as well as a narrative analysis of the integration of QI and IS in each study.

resultsThe database search returned 3,407 title abstracts, of which 1,618 were screened. Assessment for eligibility resulted in the identification of 149 studies, of which the full texts were reviewed, and 12 studies included in the final analysis. These 12 studies integrated QI and IS methods to implement an intervention in tertiary healthcare. The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle was the most frequently used QI tool and the Theoretical Domains Framework, Behaviour Change Wheel (including Capabilities, Opportunity and Motivation) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were the most frequently used IS frameworks.

conclusionThe study highlights a lack of consistent terminology across the QI and IS fields, as well as opportunities for greater integration of the two fields to enhance study design, implementation and sustainability, and to improve healthcare performance.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareImplementation ScienceQuality ImprovementHumansHospitalsImplementation scienceIntegrationNarrative synthesisQuality improvementQuality of healthcareSystematic reviewTertiary healthcare

Identifiers

PMID40241054
PMCPMC12001488

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.