The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Creating the Evidence Base for Quality Improvement Collaboratives
Abstract
Intensive efforts are under way to improve health care quality and safety throughout the United States and abroad. Many of these efforts use the quality improvement collaborative method, an approach emphasizing collaborative learning and exchange of insights and support among a set of health care organizations. Unfortunately, the widespread acceptance and reliance on this approach are based not on solid evidence but on shared beliefs and anecdotal affirmations that may overstate the actual effectiveness of the method. More effective use of the collaborative method will require a commitment by users, researchers, and other stakeholders to rigorous, objective evaluation and the creation of a valid, useful knowledge and evidence base. Development of this evidence base will require improved conceptions of the nature of quality problems, quality improvement processes, and the types of research needed to elucidate these processes. Researchers, journal editors, and funding agencies must also cooperate to ensure that published evaluations are relevant, comprehensive, and cumulative.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Rather, complementary use of FE within an experimental study can create a dual or hybrid style approach for implementation research.15 The experimental design is thus combined with descriptive or observational research that employs a mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques, creating a richer dataset for interpreting study results.”
From The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and the QUERI experience (2006) · cites this paper as [15]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 16 · Cited by 279
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Mills PD, 2004, Jt Comm J Qual Saf, 30, 152
- Wilson T, 2003, Jt Comm J Qual Saf, 29, 85
- Weeks WB, 2001, Jt Comm J Qual Improv, 27, 243
Metadata
- Authors
- Mittman, B. S.
- Affiliations
- Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mittman, Brian S.
- ORCID
- Mittman, Brian S.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2004-06-01
- Volume
- 140
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 897-901
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2170767429
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 45.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- quality improvement collaborative, evidence base, quality of care, patient safety, cooperative learning, research needs, knowledge translation, stakeholder engagement
- MeSH terms
- Cooperative Behavior, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Quality of Health Care, United States, Evidence-Based Medicine
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: Creating the Evidence Base for Quality Improvement Collaboratives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-140-11-200406010-00011
- The paper
- Mittman, B. S. (2004). Creating the Evidence Base for Quality Improvement Collaboratives. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-140-11-200406010-00011