MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4379645078 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073697

Qualitative study of international key informants’ perspectives on the current and future state of healthcare quality measurement and feedback

2023· article· en· W4379645078 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Candice Donnelly, Anna Janssen, Kavisha Shah, Paul R. Harnett, Shalini Vinod, Tim Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQualitative researchContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Quality (philosophy)Health careQuality assuranceKnowledge managementMedical educationApplied psychologyPsychologyComputer scienceSociologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to explore the current and future state of quality measurement and feedback and identify factors influencing measurement feedback systems, including the barriers and enablers to their effective design, implementation, use and translation into quality improvement. DESIGN: This qualitative study used semistructured interviews with key informants. A deductive framework analysis was conducted to code transcripts to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). An inductive analysis was used to produce subthemes and belief statements within each TDF domain. SETTING: All interviews were conducted by videoconference and audio-recorded. PARTICIPANTS: Key informants were purposively sampled experts in quality measurement and feedback, including clinical (n=5), government (n=5), research (n=4) and health service leaders (n=3) from Australia (n=7), the USA (n=4), the UK (n=2), Canada (n=2) and Sweden (n=2). RESULTS: . The most populous subthemes included 'quality improvement culture', 'financial and human resource support' and 'patient-centred measurement'. There were minimal conflicting beliefs outside of 'data quality and completeness'. Conflicting beliefs in these subthemes were predominantly between government and clinical leaders. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors were found to influence measurement feedback systems and future considerations are presented within this manuscript. The barriers and enablers that impact these systems are complex. While there are some clear modifiable factors in the design of measurement and feedback processes, influential factors described by key informants were largely socioenvironmental. Evidence-based design and implementation, coupled with a deeper understanding of the implementation context, may lead to enhanced quality measurement feedback systems and ultimately improved care delivery and patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.410
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→