对医疗保健质量改善如何、为何、为谁以及在何种情况下影响不平等的现实主义审查。

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lucy Lara Johnson, Geoff Wong, Isla Kuhn, Graham P Martin, Anuj Kapilashrami, Laura Lennox, Georgia Bell Black, Matthew Hill, Ryan Swiers, Hashum Mahmood, Linda Jones, Jude Beng, John Ford
{"title":"对医疗保健质量改善如何、为何、为谁以及在何种情况下影响不平等的现实主义审查。","authors":"Lucy Lara Johnson, Geoff Wong, Isla Kuhn, Graham P Martin, Anuj Kapilashrami, Laura Lennox, Georgia Bell Black, Matthew Hill, Ryan Swiers, Hashum Mahmood, Linda Jones, Jude Beng, John Ford","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Quality improvement (QI) is aimed at improving care. Equity is one of the six domains of healthcare quality, as defined by the Institute of Medicine. If this domain is ignored, QI projects have the potential to maintain or even worsen inequalities.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>We aimed to understand why, how, for whom and in which contexts QI approaches increase, or do not change health inequalities in healthcare organisations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a realist review by first developing an initial programme theory, then searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Scopus for QI projects that considered health inequalities. Included studies were analysed to generate context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) and develop an overall programme theory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 6259 records. Thirty-six records met our inclusion criteria, the majority of which were from the USA. We developed CMOCs covering four clusters: values and understanding, resources, data, and design. Five of these described circumstances in which QI may increase inequalities and 15 where it may reduce inequalities. We found that QI projects that are values-led and incorporate diverse, patient-led data into design are more likely to address health inequalities. However, when staff and patients cannot engage fully with equity-focused projects, due to practical or technological barriers, QI projects are more likely to worsen inequalities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The potential for QI projects to positively impact inequalities depends on embedding equity-focused values across organisations, ensuring sufficient and appropriate resources are provided to staff delivering QI, and using diverse disaggregated data alongside considered user involvement to inform and assess the success of QI projects. Policymakers and practitioners should ensure that QI projects are used to address inequalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A realist review of how, why, for whom and in which contexts quality improvement in healthcare impacts inequalities.\",\"authors\":\"Lucy Lara Johnson, Geoff Wong, Isla Kuhn, Graham P Martin, Anuj Kapilashrami, Laura Lennox, Georgia Bell Black, Matthew Hill, Ryan Swiers, Hashum Mahmood, Linda Jones, Jude Beng, John Ford\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017386\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Quality improvement (QI) is aimed at improving care. Equity is one of the six domains of healthcare quality, as defined by the Institute of Medicine. If this domain is ignored, QI projects have the potential to maintain or even worsen inequalities.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>We aimed to understand why, how, for whom and in which contexts QI approaches increase, or do not change health inequalities in healthcare organisations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a realist review by first developing an initial programme theory, then searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Scopus for QI projects that considered health inequalities. Included studies were analysed to generate context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) and develop an overall programme theory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 6259 records. Thirty-six records met our inclusion criteria, the majority of which were from the USA. We developed CMOCs covering four clusters: values and understanding, resources, data, and design. Five of these described circumstances in which QI may increase inequalities and 15 where it may reduce inequalities. We found that QI projects that are values-led and incorporate diverse, patient-led data into design are more likely to address health inequalities. However, when staff and patients cannot engage fully with equity-focused projects, due to practical or technological barriers, QI projects are more likely to worsen inequalities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The potential for QI projects to positively impact inequalities depends on embedding equity-focused values across organisations, ensuring sufficient and appropriate resources are provided to staff delivering QI, and using diverse disaggregated data alongside considered user involvement to inform and assess the success of QI projects. Policymakers and practitioners should ensure that QI projects are used to address inequalities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017386\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017386","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

质量改进(QI)旨在改善护理。根据医学研究所的定义,公平是医疗保健质量的六个领域之一。如果这个领域被忽视,那么QI项目就有可能维持甚至加剧不平等。目的和目标:我们的目的是了解为什么,如何,为谁以及在何种背景下,QI方法增加或不改变医疗保健组织中的健康不平等。方法:我们进行了一项现实主义回顾,首先建立了一个初始规划理论,然后在MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、PsychINFO、Web of Science和Scopus中搜索考虑健康不平等的QI项目。对纳入的研究进行分析,以产生情境-机制-结果配置(cmoc)并发展总体规划理论。结果:共筛选6259条记录。36条记录符合我们的纳入标准,其中大多数来自美国。我们开发的cmoc涵盖四个集群:价值观和理解、资源、数据和设计。其中5个描述了指数可能增加不平等的情况,15个描述了指数可能减少不平等的情况。我们发现,以价值为导向并将多样化、以患者为导向的数据纳入设计的QI项目更有可能解决健康不平等问题。然而,当由于实际或技术障碍,工作人员和患者不能充分参与以公平为重点的项目时,全民健康促进项目更有可能加剧不平等。结论:QI项目积极影响不平等的潜力取决于在组织中嵌入以公平为中心的价值观,确保为提供QI的员工提供足够和适当的资源,并使用不同的分类数据以及考虑用户参与来通知和评估QI项目的成功。政策制定者和实践者应确保利用全民健康指数项目来解决不平等问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A realist review of how, why, for whom and in which contexts quality improvement in healthcare impacts inequalities.

Introduction: Quality improvement (QI) is aimed at improving care. Equity is one of the six domains of healthcare quality, as defined by the Institute of Medicine. If this domain is ignored, QI projects have the potential to maintain or even worsen inequalities.

Aims and objectives: We aimed to understand why, how, for whom and in which contexts QI approaches increase, or do not change health inequalities in healthcare organisations.

Methods: We conducted a realist review by first developing an initial programme theory, then searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Scopus for QI projects that considered health inequalities. Included studies were analysed to generate context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) and develop an overall programme theory.

Results: We screened 6259 records. Thirty-six records met our inclusion criteria, the majority of which were from the USA. We developed CMOCs covering four clusters: values and understanding, resources, data, and design. Five of these described circumstances in which QI may increase inequalities and 15 where it may reduce inequalities. We found that QI projects that are values-led and incorporate diverse, patient-led data into design are more likely to address health inequalities. However, when staff and patients cannot engage fully with equity-focused projects, due to practical or technological barriers, QI projects are more likely to worsen inequalities.

Conclusions: The potential for QI projects to positively impact inequalities depends on embedding equity-focused values across organisations, ensuring sufficient and appropriate resources are provided to staff delivering QI, and using diverse disaggregated data alongside considered user involvement to inform and assess the success of QI projects. Policymakers and practitioners should ensure that QI projects are used to address inequalities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信