Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 714

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Influence of Context on Quality Improvement Success in Health Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Open access
KAPLAN, HEATHER C., BRADY, PATRICK W., DRITZ, MICHELE C., HOOPER, DAVID K., LINAM, W. MATTHEW, FROEHLE, CRAIG M., MARGOLIS, PETER·2010·Milbank Quarterly

Abstract

CONTEXT: The mixed results of success among QI initiatives may be due to differences in the context of these initiatives. METHODS: The business and health care literature was systematically reviewed to identify contextual factors that might influence QI success; to categorize, summarize, and synthesize these factors; and to understand the current stage of development of this research field. FINDINGS: Forty-seven articles were included in the final review. Consistent with current theories of implementation and organization change, leadership from top management, organizational culture, data infrastructure and information systems, and years involved in QI were suggested as important to QI success. Other potentially important factors identified in this review included: physician involvement in QI, microsystem motivation to change, resources for QI, and QI team leadership. Key limitations in the existing literature were the lack of a practical conceptual model, the lack of clear definitions of contextual factors, and the lack of well-specified measures. CONCLUSIONS: Several contextual factors were shown to be important to QI success, although the current body of literature lacks adequate definitions and is characterized by considerable variability in how contextual factors are measured across studies. Future research should focus on identifying and developing measures of context tied to a conceptual model that examines context across all levels of the health care system and explores the relationships among various aspects of context.

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 · 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00611.x

Cites

5 of 5 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

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 714

Metadata

Authors
KAPLAN, H. C., BRADY, P. W., DRITZ, M. C., HOOPER, D. K., LINAM, W. M., FROEHLE, C. M., & MARGOLIS, P.
Venue
Milbank Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-12
Volume
88
Issue
4
Pages
500-559
ISSN
0887-378X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1840713340
Cited by
714
References
5
FWCI
2.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: The Influence of Context on Quality Improvement Success in Health Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00611.x
The paper
KAPLAN, H. C., BRADY, P. W., DRITZ, M. C., HOOPER, D. K., LINAM, W. M., FROEHLE, C. M., & MARGOLIS, P. (2010). The Influence of Context on Quality Improvement Success in Health Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Milbank Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00611.x

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.