Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 341

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness of Teaching Quality Improvement to Clinicians: A Systematic Review

Boonyasai, Romsai T., Windish, Donna M., Chakraborti, Chayan, Feldman, Leonard S., Rubin, Haya R., Bass, Eric B.·2007·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Accreditation requirements mandate teaching quality improvement (QI) concepts to medical trainees, yet little is known about the effectiveness of teaching QI. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of the effectiveness of published QI curricula for clinicians and to determine whether teaching methods influence the effectiveness of such curricula. DATA SOURCES: The electronic literature databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ERIC were searched for English-language articles published between January 1, 1980, and April 30, 2007. Experts in the field of QI were queried about relevant studies. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion if the curriculum taught QI principles to clinicians and the evaluation used a comparative study design. DATA EXTRACTION: Information about the features of each curriculum, its use of 9 principles of adult learning, and the type of educational and clinical outcomes were extracted. The relationship between the outcomes and the number of educational principles used was assessed. RESULTS: Of 39 studies that met eligibility criteria, 31 described team-based projects; 37 combined didactic instruction with experiential learning. The median number of adult learning principles used was 7 (range, 2-8). Evaluations included 22 controlled trials (8 randomized and 14 nonrandomized) and 17 pre/post or time series studies. Fourteen studies described educational outcomes (attitudes, knowledge, or skills or behaviors) and 28 studies described clinical process or patient outcomes. Nine of the 10 studies that evaluated knowledge reported only positive effects but only 2 of these described a validated assessment tool. The 6 assessments of attitudes found mixed results. Four of the 6 studies on skill or behavior outcomes reported only positive effects. Eight of the 28 studies of clinical outcomes reported only beneficial effects. Controlled studies were more likely than other studies to report mixed or null effects. Only 4 studies evaluated both educational and clinical outcomes, providing limited evidence that educational outcomes influence the clinical effectiveness of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Most published QI curricula apply sound adult learning principles and demonstrate improvement in learners' knowledge or confidence to perform QI. Additional studies are needed to determine whether educational methods have meaningful clinical benefits.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.298.9.1023

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 341

Metadata

Authors
Boonyasai, R. T., Windish, D. M., Chakraborti, C., Feldman, L. S., Rubin, H. R., & Bass, E. B.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2007-09-05
Volume
298
Issue
9
Pages
1023
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1967280435
Cited by
341
References
3
FWCI
23.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effectiveness of Teaching Quality Improvement to Clinicians: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.298.9.1023
The paper
Boonyasai, R. T., Windish, D. M., Chakraborti, C., Feldman, L. S., Rubin, H. R., & Bass, E. B. (2007). Effectiveness of Teaching Quality Improvement to Clinicians: A Systematic Review. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.9.1023

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.