↓ Skip to main content

The influence of context on the effectiveness of hospital quality improvement strategies: a review of systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 context on the effectiveness of hospital quality improvement strategies: a review of systematic reviews
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0906-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dionne S. Kringos, Rosa Sunol, Cordula Wagner, Russell Mannion, Philippe Michel, Niek S. Klazinga, Oliver Groene

Abstract

It is now widely accepted that the mixed effect and success rates of strategies to improve quality and safety in health care are in part due to the different contexts in which the interventions are planned and implemented. The objectives of this study were to (i) describe the reporting of contextual factors in the literature on the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies, (ii) assess the relationship between effectiveness and contextual factors, and (iii) analyse the importance of contextual factors. We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews searching the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase and CINAHL. The search focused on quality improvement strategies included in the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group taxonomy. We extracted data on quality improvement effectiveness and context factors. The latter were categorized according to the Model for Understanding Success in Quality tool. We included 56 systematic reviews in this study of which only 35 described contextual factors related with the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions. The most frequently reported contextual factors were: quality improvement team (n = 12), quality improvement support and capacity (n = 11), organization (n = 9), micro-system (n = 8), and external environment (n = 4). Overall, context factors were poorly reported. Where they were reported, they seem to explain differences in quality improvement effectiveness; however, publication bias may contribute to the observed differences. Contextual factors may influence the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions, in particular at the level of the clinical micro-system. Future research on the implementation and effectiveness of quality improvement interventions should emphasize formative evaluation to elicit information on context factors and report on them in a more systematic way in order to better appreciate their relative importance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Spain 3 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 168 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 17%
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Other 17 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Other 50 28%
Unknown 18 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 19%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Other 33 19%
Unknown 28 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 09 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,790,923
of 16,750,089 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#751
of 5,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,933
of 238,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,750,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,752 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 238,436 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them