↓ Skip to main content

Applying the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach to a large pragmatic study involving safety net clinics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
315 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Applying the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach to a large pragmatic study involving safety net clinics
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2364-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Coury, Jennifer L. Schneider, Jennifer S. Rivelli, Amanda F. Petrik, Evelyn Seibel, Brieshon D’Agostini, Stephen H. Taplin, Beverly B. Green, Gloria D. Coronado

Abstract

The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement process in health care settings, although its documented use in pragmatic clinical research is rare. A recent pragmatic clinical research study, called the Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), used this process to optimize the research implementation of an automated colon cancer screening outreach program in intervention clinics. We describe the process of using this PDSA approach, the selection of PDSA topics by clinic leaders, and project leaders' reactions to using PDSA in pragmatic research. STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study that aims to test the effectiveness of a direct-mail fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) program involving eight Federally Qualified Health Centers in Oregon and California. We and a practice improvement specialist trained in the PDSA process delivered structured presentations to leaders of these centers; the presentations addressed how to apply the PDSA process to improve implementation of a mailed outreach program offering colorectal cancer screening through FIT tests. Center leaders submitted PDSA plans and delivered reports via webinar at quarterly meetings of the project's advisory board. Project staff conducted one-on-one, 45-min interviews with project leads from each health center to assess the reaction to and value of the PDSA process in supporting the implementation of STOP CRC. Clinic-selected PDSA activities included refining the intervention staffing model, improving outreach materials, and changing workflow steps. Common benefits of using PDSA cycles in pragmatic research were that it provided a structure for staff to focus on improving the program and it allowed staff to test the change they wanted to see. A commonly reported challenge was measuring the success of the PDSA process with the available electronic medical record tools. Understanding how the PDSA process can be applied to pragmatic trials and the reaction of clinic staff to their use may help clinics integrate evidence-based interventions into their everyday care processes. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01742065 . Registered October 31, 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 315 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 315 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 15%
Student > Bachelor 40 13%
Researcher 22 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 6%
Student > Postgraduate 17 5%
Other 52 17%
Unknown 118 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 62 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 55 17%
Social Sciences 11 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 3%
Unspecified 9 3%
Other 45 14%
Unknown 123 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,424,842
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,562
of 7,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,368
of 318,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#101
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.