Harnessing the health systems strengthening potential of quality improvement using realist evaluation: an example from southern Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality improvement (QI) is a problem-solving approach in which stakeholders identify context-specific problems and create and implement strategies to address these. It is an approach that is increasingly used to support health system strengthening, which is widely promoted in Sub-Saharan Africa. However, few QI initiatives are sustained and implementation is poorly understood. Here, we propose realist evaluation to fill this gap, sharing an example from southern Tanzania. We use realist evaluation to generate insights around the mechanisms driving QI implementation. These insights can be harnessed to maximize capacity strengthening in QI and to support its operationalization, thus contributing to health systems strengthening. Realist evaluation begins by establishing an initial programme theory, which is presented here. We generated this through an elicitation approach, in which multiple sources (theoretical literature, a document review and previous project reports) were collated and analysed retroductively to generate hypotheses about how the QI intervention is expected to produce specific outcomes linked to implementation. These were organized by health systems building blocks to show how each block may be strengthened through QI processes. Our initial programme theory draws from empowerment theory and emphasizes the self-reinforcing nature of QI: the more it is implemented, the more improvements result, further empowering people to use it. We identified that opportunities that support skill- and confidence-strengthening are essential to optimizing QI, and thus, to maximizing health systems strengthening through QI. Realist evaluation can be used to generate rich implementation data for QI, showcasing how it can be supported in 'real-world' conditions for health systems strengthening.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".