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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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, on behalf of the DUQuE Consortium |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 4 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 19% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 13% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 50% |
| Scientists | 4 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 235 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 43 | 18% |
| Researcher | 32 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 7% |
| Other | 59 | 24% |
| Unknown | 43 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 68 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 43 | 18% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 14 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 42 | 17% |
| Unknown | 54 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 02 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,539,961
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#520
of 7,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,652
of 265,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#9
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 265,420 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.