Skip to main content

Table 3 Contextual factors

From: How and under what circumstances do quality improvement collaboratives lead to better outcomes? A systematic review

Category

No. of studies

Evidence synthesis

Quality of evidence (ref.)

Relationship with outcome

Relationship with mechanism

Quantitative and mixed methods

Qualitative and review

1 Healthcare setting in which a QI intervention is introduced

Facility size

N = 1

No

No evidence that hospital size is associated with improvement in outcome.

-

Not discussed.

Medium [42]

 

Base line performance

N = 1

Yes

Lower base line performance of hospitals is positively associated with magnitude of outcome improvement.

Yes

Lower base line performance is positively associated with active participation in QIC.

Medium [43]

 

Voluntary or compulsory participation

N = 1

No

No evidence of differences in outcomes.

-

Not discussed.

High [44]

 

Factors related to health facility readiness

N = 5

Yes/No

Inconclusive evidence of association between programme pre-conditions (staff, resources, usability of health information system systems, measurement data availability and senior level commitment to target) and outcomes.

Yes

Bottom up leadership style may foster more positive perceptions of organisational readiness for change. Limited clinical skills, poor staff morale and few resources negatively associated with outcomes.

Medium [42, 45, 46]; high [47]

Low [48]

2 Project-specific contextual factors

External support

N = 6

Yes

Quality, appropriateness and intensity of quality improvement support positively associated with perceived improvement in outcomes.

Yes

The number of ideas tested by quality improvement teams partly mediates the association between external support and perceived improvement.

Medium [42, 46]; high [49]

Low [48, 50, 51]

Quality improvement team characteristics

N = 4

Yes

Inclusion of opinion leader, team functionality and previous knowledge or experience of quality improvement is positively associated with outcome.

-

Not discussed

Medium [52, 53]; high [49, 54]

 

3 Wider organisational context and external environment

Leadership characteristics

N = 5

Yes

Supportive leadership is positively associated with perceived improvement in outcomes.

Yes

Supportive leadership may motivate physicians to implement quality improvement and may enable active testing of ideas by quality improvement teams. Lack of supportive leadership may demotivate and stall quality improvement team efforts.

High [49, 54, 55]

Low [51, 56]

Health system alignment

N = 4

-

Not discussed.

Yes

Alignment with national priorities, national-level quality strategy, and incentives systems is essential to enable leadership support.

Medium [46]

Low [48, 50, 51]