↓ Skip to main content

The influence of contextual factors on healthcare quality improvement initiatives: what works, for whom and in what setting? Protocol for a realist review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
96 X users

Readers on

mendeley
213 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
The influence of contextual factors on healthcare quality improvement initiatives: what works, for whom and in what setting? Protocol for a realist review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0566-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Coles, Mary Wells, Margaret Maxwell, Fiona M. Harris, Julie Anderson, Nicola M. Gray, Gill Milner, Stephen MacGillivray

Abstract

Context shapes the effectiveness of knowledge implementation and influences health improvement. Successful healthcare quality improvement (QI) initiatives frequently fail to transfer to different settings, with local contextual factors often cited as the cause. Understanding and overcoming contextual barriers is therefore crucial to implementing effective improvement; yet context is still poorly understood. There is a paucity of information on the mechanisms underlying how and why QI projects succeed or fail in given settings. A realist review of empirical studies of healthcare QI initiatives will be undertaken to examine the influence and impact of contextual factors on quality improvement in healthcare settings and explore whether QI initiatives can work in all contexts. The review will explore which contextual factors are important, and how, why, when and for whom they are important, within varied settings. The dynamic nature of context and change over time will be explored by examining which aspects of context impact at key points in the improvement trajectory. The review will also consider the influence of context on improvement outcomes (provider- and patient-level), spread and sustainability. The review process will follow five iterative steps: (1) clarify scope, (2) search for evidence, (3) appraise primary studies and extract data, (4) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions and (5) disseminate findings. The reviewers will consult with experts and stakeholders in the early stages to focus the review and develop a programme theory consisting of explanatory 'context-mechanism-outcome' configurations. Searches for primary evidence will be conducted iteratively. Data will be extracted and tested against the programme theory. A review advisory group will oversee the review process. Review findings will follow RAMESES guidelines and will be disseminated via a report, presentations and peer-reviewed publications. The review will update and consolidate evidence on the contextual conditions for effective improvement and distil new knowledge to inform the design and development of context-sensitive QI initiatives. This review ties in with the study of improvement programmes as vehicles of change and the development of an evidence base around healthcare improvement by addressing whether QI initiatives can work in all contexts. PROSPERO CRD42017062135.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 96 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 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 213 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 18%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 10%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Other 45 21%
Unknown 48 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 15 7%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Psychology 10 5%
Other 40 19%
Unknown 57 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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 April 2021.
All research outputs
#635,058
of 24,579,513 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#74
of 2,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,651
of 321,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#6
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,579,513 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 321,664 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.