ArticleBMC medical education2025
Integrating quality improvement, evidence-based practice, and knowledge translation into a health Sciences masters' programme: a mixed methods study.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, the emphasis on quality improvement (QI), evidence-based practice (EBP), and knowledge translation (KT) in the education of health professionals has increased. Efforts have been made to identify commonalities between quality improvement and implementation science. However, the development of curricula that encompass these approaches remains poorly understood. Consequently, this study examines the implementation of a novel teaching module in quality improvement and evidence-based practice, designed for health sciences master’s students. The objective was to explore how students apply a combination of QI, EBP, and KT principles to enhance health services through clinically relevant, project-based assessments.
methodsThe study utilised a mixed-methods approach. A survey assessed students’ self-perceived skills in quality improvement and the implementation of evidence-based practice. Of the 311 students enrolled, 163 (52%) participated in the pre-evaluation and 123 (39%) participated in the post-evaluation. Four focus group interviews with 24 students explored reflections on their learning process and the knowledge application within their respective professional fields. Project plans from 14 exam groups explored reflections on implementation. The qualitative data was analysed according to the principles of descriptive analysis.
resultsSurvey data indicated statistically significant improvements in seven student-reported learning outcomes from pre- to post-evaluation, specifically addressing issues such as setting up a literature search strategy and identifying relevant barriers and facilitators in planning an improvement project (p < 0.001). Learning outcomes were assessed as either confident or not confident. Focus groups and textual analysis identified three themes: teaching modelled as project consultation, improving with evidence, and qualifying for implementation work. Combined survey and qualitative data indicated that a supervised project exam is recommended. Integrating QI, EBP, and KT is advisable, but clarification of their integration is needed. Additionally, planning an improvement project for implementation in an existing organization is recommended as a framework for a project exam.
conclusionsThe study supports a module for teaching quality improvement and implementation science within an integrated course for master’s students. Additionally, the study demonstrated the usefulness of a supervised continuous group examination task. Teachers adopting this course design should offer students a clear, robust, and explicit model for improving health services.
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.