CONTEXT: The apparent inconsistency between the widespread use of quality improvement collaboratives and the available evidence heightens the importance of thoroughly understanding the relative strength of the approach. More insight into factors influencing outcome would mean future collaboratives could be tailored in ways designed to increase their chances of success. This review describes potential determinants of team success and how they relate to effectiveness. METHOD: We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO databases from January 1995 to June 2006. The 1995-2006 search was updated in June 2009. Reference lists of included papers were reviewed to identify additional papers. We included papers that were written in English, contained data about the effectiveness of collaboratives, had a healthcare setting, met our definition for collaborative, and quantitatively assessed a relationship between any determinant and any effect parameter. FINDINGS: Of 1367 abstracts identified, 23 papers (reporting on 26 collaboratives) provided information on potential determinants and their relationship with effectiveness. We categorised potential determinants of success using the definition for collaboratives as a template. Numerous potential determinants were tested, but only a few related to empirical effectiveness. Some aspects of teamwork and participation in specific collaborative activities enhanced short-term success. If teams remained intact and continued to gather data, chances of long-term success were higher. There is no empirical evidence of positive effects of leadership support, time and resources. CONCLUSIONS: These outcomes provide guidance to organisers, participants and researchers of collaboratives. To advance knowledge in this area we propose a more systematic exploration of potential determinants by applying theory and practice-based knowledge and by performing methodologically sound studies that clearly set out to test such determinants.
CONTEXT: The apparent inconsistency between the widespread use of quality improvement collaboratives and the available evidence heightens the importance of thoroughly understanding the relative strength of the approach. More insight into factors influencing outcome would mean future collaboratives could be tailored in ways designed to increase their chances of success. This review describes potential determinants of team success and how they relate to effectiveness. METHOD: We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO databases from January 1995 to June 2006. The 1995-2006 search was updated in June 2009. Reference lists of included papers were reviewed to identify additional papers. We included papers that were written in English, contained data about the effectiveness of collaboratives, had a healthcare setting, met our definition for collaborative, and quantitatively assessed a relationship between any determinant and any effect parameter. FINDINGS: Of 1367 abstracts identified, 23 papers (reporting on 26 collaboratives) provided information on potential determinants and their relationship with effectiveness. We categorised potential determinants of success using the definition for collaboratives as a template. Numerous potential determinants were tested, but only a few related to empirical effectiveness. Some aspects of teamwork and participation in specific collaborative activities enhanced short-term success. If teams remained intact and continued to gather data, chances of long-term success were higher. There is no empirical evidence of positive effects of leadership support, time and resources. CONCLUSIONS: These outcomes provide guidance to organisers, participants and researchers of collaboratives. To advance knowledge in this area we propose a more systematic exploration of potential determinants by applying theory and practice-based knowledge and by performing methodologically sound studies that clearly set out to test such determinants.
Authors: Benjamin R Nordstrom; Elizabeth C Saunders; Bethany McLeman; Andrea Meier; Haiyi Xie; Chantal Lambert-Harris; Beth Tanzman; John Brooklyn; Gregory King; Nels Kloster; Clifton Frederick Lord; William Roberts; Mark P McGovern Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2016 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Eduard E Vasilevskis; Sunil Kripalani; Michael K Ong; J Thomas Rosenthal; David E Longnecker; Brian Harmon; Samuel F Hohmann; Kelly Wright; Jeanne T Black Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Joan Carpenter; Susan C Miller; Ann M Kolanowski; Michele J Karel; Vyjeyanthi S Periyakoil; Jill Lowery; Cari Levy; Anne E Sales; Mary Ersek Journal: J Gerontol Nurs Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 1.254
Authors: Lenore de la Perrelle; Monica Cations; Gaery Barbery; Gorjana Radisic; Billingsley Kaambwa; Maria Crotty; Janna Anneke Fitzgerald; Susan Kurrle; Ian Cameron; Craig Whitehead; Jane Thompson; Kate Laver Journal: BMJ Open Qual Date: 2021-05
Authors: Mary V Kinney; David Roger Walugembe; Phillip Wanduru; Peter Waiswa; Asha George Journal: Health Policy Plan Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 3.344
Authors: Nelli Westercamp; Sarah G Staedke; Catherine Maiteki-Sebuguzi; Alex Ndyabakira; John Michael Okiring; Simon P Kigozi; Grant Dorsey; Edward Broughton; Eleanor Hutchinson; M Rashad Massoud; Alexander K Rowe Journal: Malar J Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 2.979