Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40956853›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2025

Design approaches for developing quality checklists in healthcare organizations: A scoping review.

Elizabeth Kwong, Amy Cole, Elizabeth Byrd, Dorothy Sippo, Fei Yu, Karthik Adapa, Christopher M Shea, Carlton Moore, Shiva Das, Lukasz Mazur

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Elizabeth KwongCarolina Health Informatics Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1581-6865
Amy ColeCarolina Health Informatics Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9478-6005
Elizabeth ByrdSchool of Information and Library Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Dorothy SippoDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Fei YuSchool of Information and Library Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Karthik AdapaCarolina Health Informatics Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Christopher M SheaDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Carlton MooreDivision of Hospital Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Shiva DasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Lukasz MazurSchool of Information and Library Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

An Interdisciplinary Program for Advanced Training in Health Data AnalyticsT15LM012500 · NLM · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MOSTAFA, JAVED · 2017 to 2021
$2.9M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM012500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quality checklists have demonstrated benefits in healthcare and other high-reliability organizations, but there remains a gap in the understanding of design approaches and levels of stakeholder engagement in the development of these quality checklists. This scoping review aims to synthesize the current knowledge base regarding the use of various design approaches for developing quality checklists in healthcare. Secondary objectives are to explore theoretical frameworks, design principles, stakeholder involvement and engagement, and characteristics of the design methods used for developing quality checklists. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews 2020 checklist. Seven databases (PubMed, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore) were searched for studies using a comprehensive search strategy developed in collaboration with a health sciences librarian. Search terms included "checklist" and "user-centered design" and their related terms. The IAP2 Spectrum of Participation Framework was used to categorize studies by level of stakeholder engagement during data extraction. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Twenty-three distinct design methods were identified that were predominantly non-collaborative in nature (e.g., interviews, surveys, and other methods that involved only one researcher and one participant at a given time). Analysis of the levels of stakeholder engagement revealed a gap in studies that empowered their stakeholders in the quality checklist design process. Highly effective, clear, and standardized methodologies are needed for the design of quality checklists. Future work needs to explore how stakeholders can be empowered in the design process, and how different levels of stakeholder engagement might impact implementation outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID40956853
PMCPMC12440183

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.