» Articles » PMID: 32336290

The Influence of Contextual Factors on Healthcare Quality Improvement Initiatives: a Realist Review

Overview
Journal Syst Rev
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2020 Apr 28
PMID 32336290
Citations 65
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Recognising the influence of context and the context-sensitive nature of quality improvement (QI) interventions is crucial to implementing effective improvements and successfully replicating them in new settings, yet context is still poorly understood. To address this challenge, it is necessary to capture generalisable knowledge, first to understand which aspects of context are most important to QI and why, and secondly, to explore how these factors can be managed to support healthcare improvement, in terms of implementing successful improvement initiatives, achieving sustainability and scaling interventions. The research question was how and why does context influence quality improvement initiatives in healthcare?

Methods: A realist review explored the contextual conditions that influence healthcare improvement. Realist methodology integrates theoretical understanding and stakeholder input with empirical research findings. The review aimed to identify and understand the role of context during the improvement cycle, i.e. planning, implementation, sustainability and transferability; and distil new knowledge to inform the design and development of context-sensitive QI initiatives. We developed a preliminary theory of the influence of context to arrive at a conceptual and theoretical framework.

Results: Thirty-five studies were included in the review, demonstrating the interaction of key contextual factors across healthcare system levels during the improvement cycle. An evidence-based explanatory theoretical model is proposed to illustrate the interaction between contextual factors, system levels (macro, meso, micro) and the stages of the improvement journey. Findings indicate that the consideration of these contextual factors would enhance the design and delivery of improvement initiatives, across a range of improvement settings.

Conclusions: This is the first realist review of context in QI and contributes to a deeper understanding of how context influences quality improvement initiatives. The distillation of key contextual factors offers the potential to inform the design and development of context-sensitive interventions to enhance improvement initiatives and address the challenge of spread and sustainability. Future research should explore the application of our conceptual model to enhance improvement-planning processes.

Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42017062135.

Citing Articles

Organizational readiness and implementation of colorectal cancer screening evidence-based interventions in federally qualified health centers: A cross-sectional study.

Dias E, Walker T, Balasubramanian B, Cuccaro P, Workman L, Wandersman A J Clin Transl Sci. 2025; 9(1):e26.

PMID: 40052058 PMC: 11883589. DOI: 10.1017/cts.2024.689.


Location-independent leadership: managers' experiences leading prehospital emergency care in Sweden - a qualitative study.

Lindlof H, Savage C, Harenstam K, Vicente V BMC Health Serv Res. 2025; 25(1):265.

PMID: 39962587 PMC: 11834692. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-025-12433-1.


Characteristics of Quality Improvement Projects in Health Services: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Khalil H, de Moel-Mandel C, Verma D, Kynoch K, Fernandez R, Ramis M J Evid Based Med. 2025; 18(1):e12670.

PMID: 39838939 PMC: 11822086. DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12670.


Contextual factors influencing the use of digital health by patients and physicians in primary care: a scoping review protocol.

Luchowska K, Chmielewska M, Byszek K, Olearczyk A, Gawronska A, Wieckowska B BMJ Open. 2025; 14(12):e088169.

PMID: 39806600 PMC: 11667403. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088169.


Good practices to optimise the performance of maternal and neonatal quality improvement teams: Results from a longitudinal qualitative evaluation in South Africa, before, and during COVID-19.

Odendaal W, Tomlinson M, Goga A, Singh Y, Kauchali S, Marshall C PLoS One. 2024; 19(11):e0314024.

PMID: 39561133 PMC: 11575831. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314024.


References
1.
Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, Batalden P, Davidoff F, Stevens D . SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015; 25(12):986-992. PMC: 5256233. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411. View

2.
Dixon-Woods M, Leslie M, Tarrant C, Bion J . Explaining Matching Michigan: an ethnographic study of a patient safety program. Implement Sci. 2013; 8:70. PMC: 3704826. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-70. View

3.
Ovretveit J . Understanding the conditions for improvement: research to discover which context influences affect improvement success. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011; 20 Suppl 1:i18-23. PMC: 3066695. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.045955. View

4.
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K . Realist review--a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10 Suppl 1:21-34. DOI: 10.1258/1355819054308530. View

5.
Li S, Jeffs L, Barwick M, Stevens B . Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review. Syst Rev. 2018; 7(1):72. PMC: 5936626. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0734-5. View