Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||How to study improvement interventions: a brief overview of possible study types|
|Authors:||Portela, M. C.|
Pronovost, P. J.
Dixon-Woods, Mary Margaret
|Publisher:||BMJ Publishing Group for Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine(FPM)|
|Citation:||Postgraduate Medical Journal, 2015, 91 (1076), pp. 343-354|
|Abstract:||Improvement (defined broadly as purposive efforts to secure positive change) has become an increasingly important activity and field of inquiry within healthcare. This article offers an overview of possible methods for the study of improvement interventions. The choice of available designs is wide, but debates continue about how far improvement efforts can be simultaneously practical (aimed at producing change) and scientific (aimed at producing new knowledge), and whether the distinction between the practical and the scientific is a real and useful one. Quality improvement projects tend to be applied and, in some senses, self-evaluating. They are not necessarily directed at generating new knowledge, but reports of such projects if well conducted and cautious in their inferences may be of considerable value. They can be distinguished heuristically from research studies, which are motivated by and set out explicitly to test a hypothesis, or otherwise generate new knowledge, and from formal evaluations of improvement projects. We discuss variants of trial designs, quasi-experimental designs, systematic reviews, programme evaluations, process evaluations, qualitative studies, and economic evaluations. We note that designs that are better suited to the evaluation of clearly defined and static interventions may be adopted without giving sufficient attention to the challenges associated with the dynamic nature of improvement interventions and their interactions with contextual factors. Reconciling pragmatism and research rigour is highly desirable in the study of improvement. Trade-offs need to be made wisely, taking into account the objectives involved and inferences to be made.|
|Rights:||Copyright © authors, 2015. Licensee: BMJ. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|
|Description:||This is a reprint of a paper that first appeared in BMJ Quality Safety, 2015, volume 24, pages 325-336.|
|Appears in Collections:||Published Articles, Dept. of Health Sciences|
Files in This Item:
|Postgrad Med J-2015-Portela-343-54.pdf||Published (publisher PDF)||446.64 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.