ArticleLearning health systems2026
Identifying Priorities for the Department of Veterans Affairs Strategic Plan: A Rapid Multi-Method Evaluation.
Article in Learning health systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying Priorities for the Department of Veterans Affairs Strategic Plan: A Rapid Multi-Method Evaluation.Learning health systems · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Understanding the priorities of patients and leaders can help organizations prepare for the future. This evaluation sought to generate actionable data on priorities in support of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) strategic plan, with priorities identified within the literature as well as among Veterans and VA leaders. Methods: A rapid qualitative evaluation was conducted, including a document analysis based on published information, focus groups with Veterans associated with research centers, and semi-structured interviews with VA leaders. All data were analyzed using rapid qualitative methods, resulting in comprehensive templated descriptions of topics discussed and representative quotes. Summative content analysis was used to report frequencies and identify the most frequently mentioned priorities. Results: A total of 170 documents (e.g., academic/research articles, government publications) were analyzed. Seventeen Veteran focus groups (92 participants) and 26 semi-structured interviews with VA leaders (representing 19 program offices) were conducted. There were differences in the most frequently mentioned priorities across sources, with none ranked in the top 5 for all. However, "Access and Continuity of Care," "Health Benefits," "Special Groups," and "Workforce" were among the top 10 mentioned within all sources. Among these, "Workforce" was most mentioned within the document analysis, whereas "Access and Continuity of Care" was most mentioned in focus groups. Both "Health Benefits" and "Access and Continuity of Care" were most mentioned during leadership interviews. Conclusions: Our findings suggest shared priorities to emphasize as VA looks to the future: improving care access, efficient and effective benefits processing, ensuring the needs of special Veteran groups are met, and sustaining an adequate workforce. However, further work should focus on understanding how Veterans and staff engage with the system to guide the investment of limited organizational resources. This work serves as an example of how rapid evaluation could be applied for strategic planning in other settings.
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.