ArticleBMC primary care2025
Unveiling the process behind quality indicator selection in Portuguese primary healthcare - a qualitative study.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
Abstract
backgroundSince 2008, Portugal's primary healthcare (PHC) units have been evaluated and partially funded based on an extensive set of quality indicators. This study aimed to explore the process of quality indicator selection, and the criteria used to choose among indicators.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study from 2022 to 2023, combining documentary analysis of 38 meeting minutes and 19 appendices from the National Technical Committee (NTC) with semi-structured interviews of 10 NTC members responsible for selecting these indicators. Data were analysed using computer-assisted thematic analysis with an interpretive approach in MAXQDA, and findings were triangulated across sources. The study followed the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) guideline.
resultsKey findings highlighted the importance of indicator validity, emphasizing the need for indicators to accurately reflect clinical performance unaffected by available resources or patients' characteristics. Relevance was also viewed as a major attribute, requiring alignment with National Health Service goals, the potential to reduce performance gaps, and scientific robustness. Feasibility (e.g. availability of data) and usability (capacity to enhance quality in practice) were also frequently mentioned. Participants raised concerns about their roles within the Committee, noting ambiguity between providing technical input and acting as political representatives, compounded by professional tensions. Many also reported a lack of clarity regarding how indicators were developed, prioritised, and supported by evidence, with limited transparency and communication throughout the process. This contrasts with best practices identified in the literature, which emphasize transparency, pilot testing, and clearly defined roles to ensure effective stakeholder engagement.
conclusionsOur findings contribute to the understanding of quality indicator selection in primary healthcare, highlighting the need for clear stakeholder roles, greater transparency, structured consensus-building, and inclusion of patient and public perspectives. Future research should be embedded within the indicator development process to support continuous learning and improvement.
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.