Publication Guidelines for Quality Improvement Studies in Health Care: Evolution of the SQUIRE Project

Davidoff, Frank; Batalden, Paul B.; Stevens, David P.; Ogrinc, Greg; Mooney, Susan

doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0797-4

Cited by 34 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The SQUIRE guidelines were developed and refined through a systematic vetting process with input from an expert panel and through public feedback [12, 13] and provide a framework for reporting new knowledge about how to improve healthcare. Two authors rated each evaluation using an adapted quality assessment scoring approach where each adapted SQUIRE criteria met by an evaluation report resulted in 1 point.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring adolescent friendly health services in India: A scoping review of evaluations

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInitiatives to promote adolescent friendly health services (AFHS) have been taking place in India and many low- and middle-income countries for nearly two decades. Evaluations of these initiatives have been placed in the public arena from time to time, but little is known about what they say about the overall situation on AFHS in India. This study aimed to describe how efforts to provide AFHS in India have been evaluated, how well they have been evaluated, and what their findings and implications are.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of evaluations of AFHS initiatives in India from 2000 to 2014. An electronic search was carried out in Medline and EMBASE. A manual search of grey literature was also performed, and experts were contacted in order to obtain additional manuscripts and reports.ResultsThirty evaluation reports were identified representing a broad geographic distribution. Evaluations have focused on government-sponsored AFHS programmes or independent non-governmental organization (NGO) initiatives to strengthen government services. The evaluations primarily measured programme outputs (e.g. quality and service utilization) and health behavioural outcomes (e.g. condom use). Study designs were commonly descriptive or quasi-experimental. Most evaluations found improvement in quality and utilization of services, and some demonstrated an increase in adolescent knowledge or health behaviours. Few measured positive project/programme results such as older age at first pregnancy. Strengths of evaluations were clear objectives, frequent use of multiple data sources, and assessment of programmatic outputs as well as health outcomes. Weaknesses were lack of consistency and quality.ConclusionsOur findings confirm that a number of evaluations of AFHS initiatives in India have been carried out. They point to service quality and in behavioural improvements in adolescents. However, their lack of consistency hinders comparison across sites, and their uneven quality means that their findings need to be interpreted with caution. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12978-016-0251-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring adolescent friendly health services in India: A scoping review of evaluations

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After removal of the CONSORT guidelines, we included a total of 101 reporting guidelines. 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review

Stevens

Shamseer

Weinstein

et al. 2014

BMJ

200

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines. Design Systematic review.Data sources Reporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed "evaluations") (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name.Study selection English language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals).Data extraction Potentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals' websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors' analysis, a mean summed score.Results 101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15 249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations. ConclusionsThe completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals' endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence.Systematic review registration Not registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.

show abstract

“…An earlier CQI evidence review 7 also identified the issue of variable language use and reporting. Efforts to standardise reporting for randomised controlled trials 13–15 and QIIs 31 have proven useful. Our results support similar efforts for CQI interventions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying continuous quality improvement publications: what makes an improvement intervention 'CQI'?

O’Neill

Hempel

Lim

et al. 2011

BMJ Quality & Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe term continuous quality improvement (CQI) is often used to refer to a method for improving care, but no consensus statement exists on the definition of CQI. Evidence reviews are critical for advancing science, and depend on reliable definitions for article selection.MethodsAs a preliminary step towards improving CQI evidence reviews, this study aimed to use expert panel methods to identify key CQI definitional features and develop and test a screening instrument for reliably identifying articles with the key features. We used a previously published method to identify 106 articles meeting the general definition of a quality improvement intervention (QII) from 9427 electronically identified articles from PubMed. Two raters then applied a six-item CQI screen to the 106 articles.ResultsPer cent agreement ranged from 55.7% to 75.5% for the six items, and reviewer-adjusted intra-class correlation ranged from 0.43 to 0.62. ‘Feedback of systematically collected data’ was the most common feature (64%), followed by being at least ‘somewhat’ adapted to local conditions (61%), feedback at meetings involving participant leaders (46%), using an iterative development process (40%), being at least ‘somewhat’ data driven (34%), and using a recognised change method (28%). All six features were present in 14.2% of QII articles.ConclusionsWe conclude that CQI features can be extracted from QII articles with reasonable reliability, but only a small proportion of QII articles include all features. Further consensus development is needed to support meaningful use of the term CQI for scientific communication.

show abstract

Publication Guidelines for Quality Improvement Studies in Health Care: Evolution of the SQUIRE Project

Cited by 34 publications

References 23 publications

Measuring adolescent friendly health services in India: A scoping review of evaluations

Measuring adolescent friendly health services in India: A scoping review of evaluations

Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review

Identifying continuous quality improvement publications: what makes an improvement intervention 'CQI'?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About