Dataset Information

Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are widely used in healthcare; however, the effectiveness of the methods is variable, and evidence about the extent to which contextual and other factors modify effects is limited. Investigating the relationship between these factors and CQI outcomes poses challenges for those evaluating CQI, among the most complex of which relate to the measurement of modifying factors. We aimed to provide guidance to support the selection of measurement instruments by systematically collating, categorising, and reviewing quantitative self-report instruments. METHODS: DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments, reference lists of systematic reviews, and citations and references of the main report of instruments. STUDY SELECTION: The scope of the review was determined by a conceptual framework developed to capture factors relevant to evaluating CQI in primary care (the InQuIRe framework). Papers reporting development or use of an instrument measuring a construct encompassed by the framework were included. Data extracted included instrument purpose; theoretical basis, constructs measured and definitions; development methods and assessment of measurement properties. Analysis and synthesis: We used qualitative analysis of instrument content and our initial framework to develop a taxonomy for summarising and comparing instruments. Instrument content was categorised using the taxonomy, illustrating coverage of the InQuIRe framework. Methods of development and evidence of measurement properties were reviewed for instruments with potential for use in primary care. RESULTS: We identified 186 potentially relevant instruments, 152 of which were analysed to develop the taxonomy. Eighty-four instruments measured constructs relevant to primary care, with content measuring CQI implementation and use (19 instruments), organizational context (51 instruments), and individual factors (21 instruments). Forty-one instruments were included for full review. Development methods were often pragmatic, rather than systematic and theory-based, and evidence supporting measurement properties was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Many instruments are available for evaluating CQI, but most require further use and testing to establish their measurement properties. Further development and use of these measures in evaluations should increase the contribution made by individual studies to our understanding of CQI and enhance our ability to synthesise evidence for informing policy and practice.

SUBMITTER: Brennan SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3573896 | biostudies-other | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments.

Brennan Sue E SE Bosch Marije M Buchan Heather H Green Sally E SE

Implementation science : IS 20121217 1

<h4>Background</h4>Continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are widely used in healthcare; however, the effectiveness of the methods is variable, and evidence about the extent to which contextual and other factors modify effects is limited. Investigating the relationship between these factors and CQI outcomes poses challenges for those evaluating CQI, among the most complex of which relate to the measurement of modifying factors. We aimed to provide guidance to support the selection of measu ...[more]

PMID: 23241168

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMeasuring team factors in evaluations of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) may provide important information for enhancing CQI processes and outcomes; however, the large number of potentially relevant factors and associated measurement instruments makes inclusion of such measures challenging. This review aims to provide guidance on the selection of instruments for measuring team-level factors by systematically collating, categorizing, and reviewing quantitative self-report instruments.MethodsData sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments; reference lists of systematic reviews; and citations and references of the main report of instruments.Study selectionTo determine the scope of the review, we developed and used a conceptual framework designed to capture factors relevant to evaluating CQI in primary care (the InQuIRe framework). We included papers reporting development or use of an instrument measuring factors relevant to teamwork. Data extracted included instrument purpose; theoretical basis, constructs measured and definitions; development methods and assessment of measurement properties. Analysis and synthesis: We used qualitative analysis of instrument content and our initial framework to develop a taxonomy for summarizing and comparing instruments. Instrument content was categorized using the taxonomy, illustrating coverage of the InQuIRe framework. Methods of development and evidence of measurement properties were reviewed for instruments with potential for use in primary care.ResultsWe identified 192 potentially relevant instruments, 170 of which were analyzed to develop the taxonomy. Eighty-one instruments measured constructs relevant to CQI teams in primary care, with content covering teamwork context (45 instruments measured enabling conditions or attitudes to teamwork), team process (57 instruments measured teamwork behaviors), and team outcomes (59 instruments measured perceptions of the team or its effectiveness). Forty instruments were included for full review, many with a strong theoretical basis. Evidence supporting measurement properties was limited.ConclusionsExisting instruments cover many of the factors hypothesized to contribute to QI success. With further testing, use of these instruments measuring team factors in evaluations could aid our understanding of the influence of teamwork on CQI outcomes. Greater consistency in the factors measured and choice of measurement instruments is required to enable synthesis of findings for informing policy and practice.

Project description:BackgroundSustainability capacity (SC), which is an organization's ability to implement and maintain change, is influenced by internal attributes, environmental contextual influencers, and intervention attributes. Temporal changes in staff SC perceptions, as well as the influence of quality improvement collaborative (QIC) participation, has generally not been explored. This project addresses this gap, measuring staff SC perceptions at four time points (baseline and every 9 months) for clinics participating in an intervention - the Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment QIC initiative (called NIATx200).MethodsA mixed linear model repeated measures analysis was applied to matched staff members (n = 908, representing 2329 total cases) across the evaluation timeframe. Three separate statistical models assessed potential predictors of SC perceptions: Time (Models I-III); NIATx200 intervention, staff job function, and tenure (Models II &III); and NIATx200 participation hours and four organizational variables (Model III).ResultsFor Model I, staff perceptions of total SC increased throughout most of the study (t1,4 = - 6.74, p < .0001; t2,4 = - 3.100, p < .036; t3,4 = - 0.23, p = ns). Model II did not change Model I's overall Time effect, but combined NIATx200 services (t = - 2.23, p = .026), staff job function (t = - 3.27, p = .001), and organizational administrators (t = - 3.50, p = .001) were also significantly associated with greater perceptions of total SC. Inclusion of additional variables in Model III demonstrated the importance of a higher participation level (t = - 3.09, p < .002) and being in a free-standing clinic (t = - 2.06, p < .04) on staff perceptions of total SC.ConclusionAlthough staff exposure to sustainability principals was minimal in NIATx200, staff perceptions about their organization's SC significantly differed over time. However, an organization's participation level in a QIC became the principal predictor of staff SC perceptions, regardless of other factors' influence. Given these findings, it is possible to develop and introduce specific sustainability content within the structure of a QIC to assess the impact on staff SC perceptions over time and the sustainment of organizational change.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00934141 . Registered July 6, 2009. Retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundHealth impairments can result in disability and changed work productivity imposing considerable costs for the employee, employer and society as a whole. A large number of instruments exist to measure health-related productivity changes; however their methodological quality remains unclear. This systematic review critically appraised the measurement properties in generic self-reported instruments that measure health-related productivity changes to recommend appropriate instruments for use in occupational and economic health practice.MethodsPubMed, PsycINFO, Econlit and Embase were systematically searched for studies whereof: (i) instruments measured health-related productivity changes; (ii) the aim was to evaluate instrument measurement properties; (iii) instruments were generic; (iv) ratings were self-reported; (v) full-texts were available. Next, methodological quality appraisal was based on COSMIN elements: (i) internal consistency; (ii) reliability; (iii) measurement error; (iv) content validity; (v) structural validity; (vi) hypotheses testing; (vii) cross-cultural validity; (viii) criterion validity; and (ix) responsiveness. Recommendations are based on evidence syntheses.ResultsThis review included 25 articles assessing the reliability, validity and responsiveness of 15 different generic self-reported instruments measuring health-related productivity changes. Most studies evaluated criterion validity, none evaluated cross-cultural validity and information on measurement error is lacking. The Work Limitation Questionnaire (WLQ) was most frequently evaluated with moderate respectively strong positive evidence for content and structural validity and negative evidence for reliability, hypothesis testing and responsiveness. Less frequently evaluated, the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS) showed strong positive evidence for internal consistency and structural validity, and moderate positive evidence for hypotheses testing and criterion validity. The Productivity and Disease Questionnaire (PRODISQ) yielded strong positive evidence for content validity, evidence for other properties is lacking. The other instruments resulted in mostly fair-to-poor quality ratings with limited evidence.ConclusionsDecisions based on the content of the instrument, usage purpose, target country and population, and available evidence are recommended. Until high-quality studies are in place to accurately assess the measurement properties of the currently available instruments, the WLQ and, in a Dutch context, the PRODISQ are cautiously preferred based on its strong positive evidence for content validity. Based on its strong positive evidence for internal consistency and structural validity, the SPS is cautiously recommended.

Project description:IntroductionNumerous instruments have been developed to assess spirituality and measure its association with health outcomes. This study's aims were to identify instruments used in clinical research that measure spirituality; to propose a classification of these instruments; and to identify those instruments that could provide information on the need for spiritual intervention.MethodsA systematic literature search in MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsycINFO, ATLA, and EMBASE databases, using the terms "spirituality" and "adult$," and limited to journal articles was performed to identify clinical studies that used a spiritual assessment instrument. For each instrument identified, measured constructs, intended goals, and data on psychometric properties were retrieved. A conceptual and a functional classification of instruments were developed.ResultsThirty-five instruments were retrieved and classified into measures of general spirituality (N = 22), spiritual well-being (N = 5), spiritual coping (N = 4), and spiritual needs (N = 4) according to the conceptual classification. Instruments most frequently used in clinical research were the FACIT-Sp and the Spiritual Well-Being Scale. Data on psychometric properties were mostly limited to content validity and inter-item reliability. According to the functional classification, 16 instruments were identified that included at least one item measuring a current spiritual state, but only three of those appeared suitable to address the need for spiritual intervention.ConclusionsInstruments identified in this systematic review assess multiple dimensions of spirituality, and the proposed classifications should help clinical researchers interested in investigating the complex relationship between spirituality and health. Findings underscore the scarcity of instruments specifically designed to measure a patient's current spiritual state. Moreover, the relatively limited data available on psychometric properties of these instruments highlight the need for additional research to determine whether they are suitable in identifying the need for spiritual interventions.

Project description:Policy Points: Investigations on systematic methodologies for measuring integrated care should coincide with the growing interest in this field of research. A systematic review of instruments provides insights into integrated care measurement, including setting the research agenda for validating available instruments and informing the decision to develop new ones. This study is the first systematic review of instruments measuring integrated care with an evidence synthesis of the measurement properties. We found 209 index instruments measuring different constructs related to integrated care; the strength of evidence on the adequacy of the majority of their measurement properties remained largely unassessed.Integrated care is an important strategy for increasing health system performance. Despite its growing significance, detailed evidence on the measurement properties of integrated care instruments remains vague and limited. Our systematic review aims to provide evidence on the state of the art in measuring integrated care.Our comprehensive systematic review framework builds on the Rainbow Model for Integrated Care (RMIC). We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for published articles on the measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care and identified eligible articles using a standard set of selection criteria. We assessed the methodological quality of every validation study reported using the COSMIN checklist and extracted data on study and instrument characteristics. We also evaluated the measurement properties of each examined instrument per validation study and provided a best evidence synthesis on the adequacy of measurement properties of the index instruments.From the 300 eligible articles, we assessed the methodological quality of 379 validation studies from which we identified 209 index instruments measuring integrated care constructs. The majority of studies reported on instruments measuring constructs related to care integration (33%) and patient-centered care (49%); fewer studies measured care continuity/comprehensive care (15%) and care coordination/case management (3%). We mapped 84% of the measured constructs to the clinical integration domain of the RMIC, with fewer constructs related to the domains of professional (3.7%), organizational (3.4%), and functional (0.5%) integration. Only 8% of the instruments were mapped to a combination of domains; none were mapped exclusively to the system or normative integration domains. The majority of instruments were administered to either patients (60%) or health care providers (20%). Of the measurement properties, responsiveness (4%), measurement error (7%), and criterion (12%) and cross-cultural validity (14%) were less commonly reported. We found <50% of the validation studies to be of good or excellent quality for any of the measurement properties. Only a minority of index instruments showed strong evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (15%), content validity (19%), and structural validity (7%); with moderate evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (14%) and construct validity (14%).Our results suggest that the quality of measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care is in need of improvement with the less-studied constructs and domains to become part of newly developed instruments.

Dataset Information

Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments.

Publications

Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets