ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Frameworks for Measuring Factors Associated With Healthcare Providers' Performance: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleHealthcare providers are influenced by several factors that affect their performance. However, no such work has been presented to organise or clarify this growing body of literature. AIM AND
objectivesThis study aimed to identify frameworks for measuring factors affecting healthcare providers' performance.
methodsThis review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extensions for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). This review was guided by the Population, Concept, and Context framework recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Searches were conducted in several databases and search engines, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. We included research articles of any design. A standardised data sheet was used for data extraction by each reviewer. The data extracted from the studies were related to the details of frameworks (name, country of origin, dimensions, indicator used, and setting of framework). The analysis of this review included variables from the framework details using ranges, medians, and counts, as appropriate. Furthermore, various interpretations of the results were presented in narrative form.
resultsWe found 17 frameworks for measuring HCPP in terms of domains, subdomains, indicators, and depth of detail. Asia accounted for the majority of framework origins (70%). Most frameworks were published around 2020 (88.23%). The domains of the frameworks varied from 2 to 8, with a median score of 5. The findings were synthesised into 8-categories covering aspects related to feedback, work environment, motivation, performance, well-being, organisation, work-life interface, and personal attributes.
conclusionThe results of this review provide useful resources for the government, health institutes, and hospitals to inform them of the factors that affect the HCPP-specifically, choosing a framework that is systematically relevant to their institutions' contexts and 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.