ArticleBMJ open quality2025
How does QI work? A trust-building framework in African healthcare: primary evidence from Kenya and Malawi.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trust is fundamental to the effective functioning of healthcare systems, influencing access, utilisation and adherence to evidence-based practices. While quality improvement (QI) processes are widely recognised for addressing technical challenges, their role in fostering trust and relationships within health systems remains underexplored. This study examines the relationship dynamics in QI teams and how trust-building frameworks align with adaptive processes in healthcare settings. We conducted a qualitative study involving 30 healthcare workers from six African countries, recruited through the Africa Consortium for Quality Improvement in Frontline Healthcare. Data were collected through semistructured interviews, transcribed and analysed using both inductive and deductive methods. Deductive analysis was guided by a published trust-building framework, while insights from a large language model were incorporated in addition to a traditional analysis to provide an unbiased perspective. Results identified three theoretically described dimensions of trust-building within QI teams: common goals, self-interest and gratitude/indebtedness. Common goals fostered teamwork, multidisciplinary collaboration and effective communication, while self-interest motivated personal and professional growth. Gratitude and recognition reinforced team cohesion and sustained motivation. Participants highlighted the importance of trust in achieving project success, noting that robust relationships within teams correlated with improved outcomes. The study underscores the dual nature of QI processes, which simultaneously address technical improvements and adaptive challenges, including trust and relationship-building. Trust-building, framed as an iterative process of aligning common goals, recognising contributions and addressing individual interests, complements technical QI methodologies like Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. These findings support expanding QI frameworks to emphasise relational dynamics, contributing to more sustainable and impactful healthcare improvements. Further research should continue to explore the adaptive dimensions of QI, integrating recent research on culturally relevant frameworks prioritising kindness in healthcare systems, to enhance trust and collaboration within healthcare systems.
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.