Cited by 52Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealthcare Quality and ManagementMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Finding order in heterogeneity: types of quality-improvement intervention publications

Open access
Rubenstein, L V, Hempel, S, Farmer, M M, Asch, S M, Yano, E M, Dougherty, D, Shekelle, P W·2008·Quality and Safety in Health Care

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Stakeholders in quality improvement agree on the need for augmenting and synthesising the scientific literature supporting it. The diversity of perspectives, approaches, and contexts critical to advancing quality improvement science, however, creates challenges. The paper explores the heterogeneity in clinical quality improvement intervention (QII) publications. METHODS: A preliminary classification framework was developed for QII articles, aiming for categories homogeneous enough to support coherent scientific discussion on QII reporting standards and facilitate systematic review. QII experts were asked to identify articles important to QII science. The framework was tested and revised by applying it to the article set. The final framework screened articles into (1) empirical literature on development and testing of QIIs; (2) QII stories, theories, and frameworks; (3) QII literature syntheses and meta-analyses; or (4) development and testing of QII-related tools. To achieve homogeneity, category (1) required division into (1a) development of QIIs; 1(b) history, documentation, or description of QIIs; or (1c) success, effectiveness or impact of QIIs. RESULTS: By discussing unique issues and established standards relevant to each category, QII stakeholders can advance QII practice and science, including the scope and conduct of systematic literature reviews.

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 · 10.1136/qshc.2008.028423

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Berridge V, Stanton J. Science and policy: historical insights. Soc Sci Med 1999;49:1133-8.
  2. Wilson AR, Dowd BE, Krawlewski JE. Medical group practices patient safety research: measurements and data challenges. Minneapolis: Division of Health Services Research and Policy, 2004. Developing research and practice Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:403-408. doi:10.1136/qshc.2008.028423 407 on July 25, 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/ Qual Saf Health Care: first published as 10.1136/qshc.2008.028423 on 8 December 2008. Downloaded from · DOI
  3. Tilly C. Why? What happens when people give reasons...and why.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.
  4. once for this service, which can be used for this journal or all BMJ Journals, including the BMJ.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rubenstein, L. V., Hempel, S., Farmer, M. M., Asch, S. M., Yano, E. M., Dougherty, D., & Shekelle, P. W.
Affiliations
  • VA Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center (US)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US)
Corresponding author
Rubenstein, L V
Venue
Quality and Safety in Health Care
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-12-01
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
403-408
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-3901
OpenAlex
W2106836859
Cited by
52
References
98
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
10.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • U.S. Public Health Service (HHSP 233200400717 P)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
quality improvement intervention, classification framework, reporting guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, literature synthesis
MeSH terms
Publications, Quality Assurance, Health Care

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