The influence of contextual factors on healthcare quality improvement initiatives:a realist review

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

Going beyond systematic reviews: realist and meta-narrative reviews

Health information technologies are complex interventions whose effects differ across contexts. To improve our understanding of the effects of health information technologies, approaches are needed that utilize evidence beyond experimental results in order to provide explanatory answers to how and why a given technology works. The relatively new realist and meta-narrative review approaches are introduced as important methods in synthesising and analysing evidence in the field of health informatics. A common purpose of these two review approaches is to help create a sense of evidence about complex interventions that enables an understanding of how and why they work. A detailed description of the principles and objectives of the two types of reviews is presented. Key steps required to conduct each of the reviews are summarized, and examples of how the review approaches have been applied to topics related to health informatics are provided. Limitations of the two review approaches are discussed

How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review

ABSTRACT Objective To examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific aims were to examine how outcomes are produced, and how variations in outcomes can be explained. Methods We used a realist review method, which aims to describe how ‘an intervention works, for whom, and in what circumstances’ by analyzing patterns between context, mechanism, and outcomes. We reviewed 32 evaluation studies of patient portals published since 2003. Results The reviewed evaluations indicate that as a complement to existing health services, patient portals can lead to improvements in clinical outcomes, patient behavior, and experiences. Four different mechanisms are reported to yield the reported outcome improvements. These are patient insight into personal health information, activation of information, interpersonal continuity of care, and service convenience. The vast majority of evaluations were conducted in integrated health service networks in the USA, and we detected no substantial variation in outcomes across these networks. Discussion and conclusions Patient portals may impact clinical outcomes and health service delivery through multiple mechanisms. Given the relative uniformity of evaluation contexts, we were not able to detect patterns in how patient portals work in different contexts. Nonetheless, it appears from the overwhelming proportion of patient portal evaluations coming from integrated health service networks, that these networks provide more fertile contexts for patient portals to be effective. To improve the understanding of how patient portals work, future evaluations of patient portals should capture information about mechanisms and context that influence their outcomes