The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How to build up the actionable knowledge base: the role of ‘best fit’ framework synthesis for studies of improvement in healthcare
Open accessAbstract
Increasing recognition of the role and value of theory in improvement work in healthcare offers the prospect of capitalising upon, and consolidating, actionable lessons from synthesis of improvement projects and initiatives. We propose that informed use of theory can (i) provide a mechanism by which to collect and organise data from a body of improvement work, (ii) offer a framework for analysis and identification of lessons learnt and (iii) facilitate an evaluation of the feasibility, effectiveness and acceptability of improvement programmes. Improvement practitioners can benefit from using an underpinning external structure as a lens by which to examine the specific achievements of their own projects alongside comparable initiatives led by others. We demonstrate the utility of a method known as ‘best fit framework synthesis’ (BFFS) in offering a ubiquitous and versatile means by which to collect, analyse and evaluate improvement work in healthcare. First reported in 2011, BFFS represents a pragmatic, flexible approach to integrating theory with findings from practice. A deductive phase, where a review team seeks to accommodate a substantial part of the data, is followed by an inductive phase, in which the team explores data not accommodated by the framework. We explore the potential for BFFS within improvement work by drawing upon the evidence synthesis methodology literature and practical examples of improvement work reported in BMJ Quality and Safety (2011–2015). We suggest four variants of BFFS that may have particular value in synthesising a body of improvement work. We conclude that BFFS, alongside other approaches that seek to optimise the contribution of theory to improvement work, represents one important enabling mechanism by which to establish the rigour and scientific credentials of the emerging discipline of ‘improvement science’.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 · Cited by 14,496
Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data
Pope, C. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114 · Cited by 8,131
Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2010) · Analyzing qualitative data · doi:10.4324/9780203413081_chapter_9 · Cited by 4,800
Taylor, M. J., McNicholas, C., Nicolay, C., Darzi, A., Bell, D., & Reed, J. E. (2014) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862 · Cited by 1,871
Planning and Studying Improvement in Patient Care: The Use of Theoretical Perspectives
GROL, R. P. T. M., BOSCH, M. C., HULSCHER, M. E. J. L., ECCLES, M. P., & WENSING, M. (2007) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00478.x · Cited by 943
Demystifying theory and its use in improvement
Davidoff, F., Dixon-Woods, M., Leviton, L., & Michie, S. (2015) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003627 · Cited by 714
“Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method
Carroll, C., Booth, A., Leaviss, J., & Rick, J. (2013) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-37 · Cited by 649
Self-citationCarroll, C., Booth, A., & Cooper, K. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-29 · Cited by 461
Self-citationAmmenwerth, E., Iller, C., & Mahler, C. (2006) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-6-3 · Cited by 459
Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews: Logic Models in Systematic Reviews
Anderson, L. M., Petticrew, M., Rehfuess, E., Armstrong, R., Ueffing, E., Baker, P., Francis, D., & Tugwell, P. (2011) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.32 · Cited by 372
Cited by
Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Bujold, M., & Wassef, M. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2 · Cited by 754
“Framework synthesis [63] To produce a new framework based on a priori and new themes.”
MethodFlemming, K., Booth, A., Garside, R., Tunçalp, Ö., & Noyes, J. (2019) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000882 · Cited by 389
Self-citationBooth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., van der Wilt, G. J., Mozygemba, K., Refolo, P., Sacchini, D., Tummers, M., et al. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.003 · Cited by 198
Self-citationHogg, H. D. J., Al-Zubaidy, M., Technology Enhanced Macular Services Study Reference Group, Talks, J., Denniston, A. K., Kelly, C. J., Malawana, J., Papoutsi, C., Teare, M. D., Keane, P. A., et al. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/39742 · Cited by 163
Shirzad, M., Shakibazadeh, E., Hajimiri, K., Betran, A. P., Jahanfar, S., Bohren, M. A., Opiyo, N., Long, Q., Kingdon, C., Colomar, M., et al. (2021) · Reproductive Health · doi:10.1186/s12978-020-01047-x · Cited by 152
Metadata
- Authors
- Booth, A., & Carroll, C.
- Venue
- BMJ Quality & Safety
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2015-08-25
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 700-708
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-5415
- 2044-5423
- OpenAlex
- W1943602870
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 18.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: How to build up the actionable knowledge base: the role of ‘best fit’ framework synthesis for studies of improvement in healthcare. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003642
- The paper
- Booth, A., & Carroll, C. (2015). How to build up the actionable knowledge base: the role of ‘best fit’ framework synthesis for studies of improvement in healthcare. BMJ Quality & Safety. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003642
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.
