Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Defining and assessing context in healthcare implementation studies: a systematic review

Authors: L. Rogers, A. De Brún, E. McAuliffe

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The implementation of evidence-based healthcare interventions is challenging, with a 17-year gap identified between the generation of evidence and its implementation in routine practice. Although contextual factors such as culture and leadership are strong influences for successful implementation, context remains poorly understood, with a lack of consensus regarding how it should be defined and captured within research. This study addresses this issue by providing insight into how context is defined and assessed within healthcare implementation science literature and develops a definition to enable effective measurement of context.

Methods

Medline, PsychInfo, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched. Articles were included if studies were empirical and evaluated context during the implementation of a healthcare initiative. These English language articles were published in the previous 10 years and included a definition and assessment of context. Results were synthesised using a narrative approach.

Results

Three thousand and twenty-one search records were obtained of which 64 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Studies used a variety of definitions in terms of the level of detail and explanation provided. Some listed contextual factors (n = 19) while others documented sub-elements of a framework that included context (n = 19). The remaining studies provide a rich definition of general context (n = 11) or aspects of context (n = 15). The Alberta Context Tool was the most frequently used quantitative measure (n = 4), while qualitative papers used a range of frameworks to evaluate context. Mixed methods studies used diverse approaches; some used frameworks to inform the methods chosen while others used quantitative measures to inform qualitative data collection. Most studies (n = 50) applied the chosen measure to all aspects of study design with a majority analysing context at an individual level (n = 29).

Conclusions

This review highlighted inconsistencies in defining and measuring context which emphasised the need to develop an operational definition. By providing this consensus, improvements in implementation processes may result, as a common understanding will help researchers to appropriately account for context in research.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Williams NR. How to get a 2:1 in media, communication and cultural studies. London: SAGE; 2004.
2.
3.
Grant J, Green L, Mason B. Basic research and health: a reassessment of the scientific basis for the support of biomedical science. Res Eval. 2003;12(3):217–24.
4.
Morris AC, Hay AW, Swann DG, Everingham K, McCulloch C, McNulty J, et al. Reducing ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care: impact of implementing a care bundle. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(10):2218–24.PubMed
5.
6.
May CR, Johnson M, Finch T. Implementation, context and complexity. Implement Sci. 2016;11(141):1–12.
7.
8.
Hansen HP, Tjørnhøj-Thomsen T, Johansen C. Rehabilitation interventions for cancer survivors: the influence of context. Psychooncology. 2011;20:51–2.
9.
10.
Ovretveit J, Dolan-Branton L, Marx M, Reid A, Reed J, Agins B. Adapting improvements to context: when, why and how? Int J Qual Health Care. 2018;30(suppl_1):20–3.PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Tomoaia-Cotisel A, Scammon DL, Waitzman NJ, Cronholm PF, Halladay H, Driscoll DL, et al. Context matters: the experience of 14 research teams in systematically reporting contextual factors important for practice change. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11:S115–23.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
13.
14.
Dopson S, Fitzgerald L. Knowledge to action?: evidence-based health care in context. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
15.
Kaplan HC, Brady PW, Dritz MC, Hooper DK, Linam WM, Froehle CM, et al. The influence of context on quality improvement success in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2010;88(4):500–59.PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Pfadenhauer LM, Mozygemba K, Gerhardus A, Hofmann B, Booth A, Lysdahl KB, et al. Context and implementation: a concept analysis towards conceptual maturity. Z Evidenz Fortbild Qual Im Gesundheitswesen. 2015;109(2):103–14.
17.
McCormack B, Kitson A, Harvey G, Rycroft-Malone J, Titchen A, Seers K. Getting evidence into practice: the meaning of `context. J Adv Nurs. 2002;38(1):94–104.PubMed
18.
Nilsen P, Bernhardsson S. Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):189.PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Murdoch J. Process evaluation for complex interventions in health services research: analysing context, text trajectories and disruptions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):407.PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Fernandez ME, Walker TJ, Weiner BJ, Calo WA, Liang S, Risendal B, et al. Developing measures to assess constructs from the inner setting domain of the consolidated framework for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):52.PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Lewis CC, Stanick CF, Martinez RG, Weiner BJ, Kim M, Barwick M, et al. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration Instrument Review Project: a methodology to promote rigorous evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):2.PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
23.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Prisma group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.PubMed
24.
25.
Abdekhoda M, Ahmadi M, Gohari M, Noruzi A. The effects of organizational contextual factors on physicians’ attitude toward adoption of electronic medical records. J Biomed Inform. 2015;53:174–9.PubMed
26.
Bokhour BG, Saifu H, Goetz MB, Fix GM, Burgess J, Fletcher MD, et al. The role of evidence and context for implementing a multimodal intervention to increase HIV testing. Implement Sci. 2015;10:22.PubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Bradley DKF, Griffin M. The well organised working environment: a mixed methods study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;55:26–38.PubMed
28.
Kramer TL, Drummond KL, Curran GM, Fortney JC. Assessing culture and climate of federally qualified health centers: a plan for implementing behavioral health interventions. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2017;28(3):973–87.PubMed
29.
Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci. 2016;11(72):1–13.
30.
31.
Al Shemeili S, Klein S, Strath A, Fares S, Stewart D. An exploration of health professionals’ experiences of medicines management in elderly, hospitalised patients in Abu Dhabi. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(1):107–18.PubMed
32.
Arney J, Thurman K, Jones L, Kiefer L, Hundt NE, Naik AD, et al. Qualitative findings on building a partnered approach to implementation of a group-based diabetes intervention in VA primary care. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):1–9.
33.
Bain E, Bubner T, Ashwood P, Van Ryswyk E, Simmonds L, Reid S, et al. Barriers and enablers to implementing antenatal magnesium sulphate for fetal neuroprotection guidelines: a study using the theoretical domains framework. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:176.PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Beidas RS, Wolk CLB, Walsh LM, Evans ACJ, Hurford MO, Barg FK. A complementary marriage of perspectives: understanding organizational social context using mixed methods. Implement Sci. 2014;9:175.PubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Belaid L, Ridde V. Contextual factors as a key to understanding the heterogeneity of effects of a maternal health policy in Burkina Faso? Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(3):309–21.PubMed
36.
Bergstrom A, Peterson S, Namusoko S, Waiswa P, Wallin L. Knowledge translation in Uganda: a qualitative study of Ugandan midwives’ and managers’ perceived relevance of the sub-elements of the context cornerstone in the PARIHS framework. Implement Sci. 2012;7:117.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Bocoum FY, Tarnagda G, Bationo F, Savadogo JR, Nacro S, Kouanda S, et al. Introducing onsite antenatal syphilis screening in Burkina Faso: implementation and evaluation of a feasibility intervention tailored to a local context. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):378.PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Burau V, Carstensen K, Fredens M, Kousgaard MB. Exploring drivers and challenges in implementation of health promotion in community mental health services: a qualitative multi-site case study using normalization process theory. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):36.PubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Busetto L, Kiselev J, Luijkx KG, Steinhagen-Thiessen E, Vrijhoef HJM. Implementation of integrated geriatric care at a German hospital: a case study to understand when and why beneficial outcomes can be achieved. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):180.PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Cheyne H, Abhyankar P, McCourt C. Empowering change: realist evaluation of a Scottish government programme to support normal birth. Midwifery. 2013;29(10):1110–21.PubMed
41.
Drainoni M-L, Koppelman EA, Feldman JA, Walley AY, Mitchell PM, Ellison J, et al. Why is it so hard to implement change? A qualitative examination of barriers and facilitators to distribution of naloxone for overdose prevention in a safety net environment. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9(1):465.PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Eboreime EA, Nxumalo N, Ramaswamy R, Eyles J. Strengthening decentralized primary healthcare planning in Nigeria using a quality improvement model: how contexts and actors affect implementation. Health Policy Plan. 2018;33(6):715–28.PubMed
43.
Gadomski AM, Wissow LS, Palinkas L, Hoagwood KE, Daly JM, Kaye DL. Encouraging and sustaining integration of child mental health into primary care: interviews with primary care providers participating in project TEACH (CAPES and CAP PC) in NY. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2014;36(6):555–62.PubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Gagliardi AR, Webster F, Brouwers MC, Baxter NN, Finelli A, Gallinger S. How does context influence collaborative decision-making for health services planning, delivery and evaluation? BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:545.PubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Georgiou A, Westbrook JI. Clinician reports of the impact of electronic ordering on an emergency department. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;150:678–82.PubMed
46.
Gibb H. An environmental scan of an aged care workplace using the PARiHS model: assessing preparedness for change. J Nurs Manag. 2013;21(2):293–303.PubMed
47.
Glidewell L, Boocock S, Pine K, Campbell R, Hackett J, Gill S, et al. Using behavioural theories to optimise shared haemodialysis care: a qualitative intervention development study of patient and professional experience. Implement Sci. 2013;8:118.PubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Greenhalgh T, Stramer K, Bratan T, Byrne E, Mohammad Y, Russell J. Introduction of shared electronic records: multi-site case study using diffusion of innovation theory. BMJ. 2008;337.
49.
Griffin A, McKeown A, Viney R, Rich A, Welland T, Gafson I, et al. Revalidation and quality assurance: the application of the MUSIQ framework in independent verification visits to healthcare organisations. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e014121.PubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Higgins A, O’Halloran P, Porter S. The Management of Long-Term Sickness Absence in large public sector healthcare Organisations: a realist evaluation using mixed methods. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(3):451–70.PubMed
51.
Menon S, Smith MW, Sittig DF, Petersen NJ, Hysong SJ, Espadas D, et al. How context affects electronic health record-based test result follow-up: a mixed-methods evaluation. BMJ Open. 2014;4(11):1–9.
52.
Naik AD, Lawrence B, Kiefer L, Ramos K, Utech A, Masozera N, et al. Building a primary care research partnership: lessons learned from a telehealth intervention for diabetes and depression. Fam Pract. 2015;32(2):216–23.PubMed
53.
Padwa H, Teruya C, Tran E, Lovinger K, Antonini VP, Overholt C, et al. The implementation of integrated behavioral health protocols in primary care settings in project care. J Subst Abus Treat. 2016;62:74–83.
54.
55.
Rabbani F, Lalji SN, Abbas F, Jafri SW, Razzak JA, Nabi N, et al. Understanding the context of balanced scorecard implementation: a hospital-based case study in Pakistan. Implement Sci. 2011;6:31.PubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Rotteau L, Webster F, Salkeld E, Hellings C, Guttmann A, Vermeulen MJ, et al. Ontario’s emergency department process improvement program: the experience of implementation. Acad Emerg Med Off J Soc Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22(6):720–9.
57.
Smith KG, Paudyal V, MacLure K, Forbes-McKay K, Buchanan C, Wilson L, et al. Relocating patients from a specialist homeless healthcare Centre to general practices: a multi-perspective study. Br J Gen Pract J R Coll Gen Pract. 2018;68(667):e105–13.
58.
Spitzer-Shohat S, Shadmi E, Goldfracht M, Key C, Hoshen M, Balicer RD. Evaluating an organization-wide disparity reduction program: understanding what works for whom and why. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0193179.PubMedPubMedCentral
59.
VanDevanter N, Kumar P, Nguyen N, Nguyen L, Nguyen T, Stillman F, et al. Application of the consolidated framework for implementation research to assess factors that may influence implementation of tobacco use treatment guidelines in the Viet Nam public health care delivery system. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):27.PubMedPubMedCentral
60.
Ware P, Ross HJ, Cafazzo JA, Laporte A, Gordon K, Seto E. Evaluating the implementation of a Mobile phone-based Telemonitoring program: longitudinal study guided by the consolidated framework for implementation research. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2018;6(7):e10768.PubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Williams L, Rycroft-Malone J, Burton C. Implementing best practice in infection prevention and control. A realist evaluation of the role of intermediaries. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;60:156–67.PubMed
62.
Yamada J, Potestio ML, Cave AJ, Sharpe H, Johnson DW, Patey AM, et al. Using the theoretical domains framework to identify barriers and enablers to pediatric asthma management in primary care settings. J Asthma. 2018;55(11):1–14.
63.
Yip M-P, Chun A, Edelson J, Feng X, Tu S-P. Contexts for sustainable implementation of a colorectal Cancer screening program at a community health center. Health Promot Pract. 2016;17(1):48–56.PubMed
64.
Durbin J, Selick A, Casson I, Green L, Spassiani N, Perry A, et al. Evaluating the implementation of health checks for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in primary care: the importance of organizational context. Intellect Dev Disabil. 2016;54(2):136–50.PubMed
65.
Erasmus E, Gilson L, Govender V, Nkosi M. Organisational culture and trust as influences over the implementation of equity-oriented policy in two south African case study hospitals. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):164.PubMedPubMedCentral
66.
Hill JN, Guihan M, Hogan TP, Smith BM, LaVela SL, Weaver FM, et al. Use of the PARIHS framework for retrospective and prospective implementation evaluations. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2017;14(2):99–107.PubMed
67.
Iribarren SJ, Sward KA, Beck SL, Pearce PF, Thurston D, Chirico C. Qualitative evaluation of a text messaging intervention to support patients with active tuberculosis: implementation considerations. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2015;3(1):e21.PubMedPubMedCentral
68.
Prashanth NS, Marchal B, Kegels G, Criel B. Evaluation of capacity-building program of district health managers in India: a contextualized theoretical framework. Front Public Health. 2014;2:89.PubMedPubMedCentral
69.
Rodriguez DC, Peterson LA. A retrospective review of the Honduras AIN-C program guided by a community health worker performance logic model. Hum Resour Health. 2016;14(1):19.PubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Baron J, Hirani S, Newman S. Challenges in patient recruitment, implementation, and Fidelity in a Mobile Telehealth study. Telemed J E-Health Off J Am Telemed Assoc. 2016;22(5):400–9.
71.
Vanderkruik R, McPherson ME. A contextual factors framework to inform implementation and evaluation of public health initiatives. Am J Eval. 2017;38(3):348–59.
72.
Forberg U, Unbeck M, Wallin L, Johansson E, Petzold M, Ygge B-M, et al. Effects of computer reminders on complications of peripheral venous catheters and nurses’ adherence to a guideline in paediatric care-a cluster randomised study. Implement Sci. 2016;11:10.PubMedPubMedCentral
73.
Chan KS, Hsu Y-J, Lubomski LH, Marsteller JA. Validity and usefulness of members reports of implementation progress in a quality improvement initiative: findings from the team check-up tool (TCT). Implement Sci. 2011;6:115.PubMedPubMedCentral
74.
Beenstock J, Sniehotta FF, White M, Bell R, Milne EM, Araujo-Soares V. What helps and hinders midwives in engaging with pregnant women about stopping smoking? A cross-sectional survey of perceived implementation difficulties among midwives in the North East of England. Implement Sci. 2012;7:36.PubMedPubMedCentral
75.
Cummings GG, Hutchinson AM, Scott SD, Norton PG, Estabrooks CA. The relationship between characteristics of context and research utilization in a pediatric setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:168.PubMedPubMedCentral
76.
Glisson C, Landsverk J, Schoenwald S, Kelleher K, Hoagwood KE, Mayberg S, et al. Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of mental health services: implications for research and practice. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2008;35(1–2):98–113.
77.
Guerrero EG, Heslin KC, Chang E, Fenwick K, Yano E. Organizational correlates of implementation of colocation of mental health and primary Care in the Veterans Health Administration. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2015;42(4):420–8.
78.
Hoffman GJ, Rodriguez HP. Examining Contextual Influences on Fall-Related Injuries Among Older Adults for Population Health Management. Popul Health Manag. 2015;18(6):437–48.PubMedPubMedCentral
79.
Lemmens K, Strating M, Huijsman R, Nieboer A. Professional commitment to changing chronic illness care: results from disease management programmes. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21(4):233–42.PubMed
80.
Almblad AC, Siltberg P, Engvall G, Malqvist M. Implementation of pediatric early warning score; adherence to guidelines and influence of context. J Pediatr Nurs. 2018;38:33–9.PubMed
81.
Chiu TM, Ku BP. Moderating effects of voluntariness on the actual use of electronic health records for allied health professionals. JMIR Med Inform. 2015;3(1):e7.PubMedPubMedCentral
82.
Ehrhart MG, Aarons GA, Farahnak LR. Assessing the organizational context for EBP implementation: the development and validity testing of the implementation climate scale (ICS). Implement Sci. 2014;9:157.PubMedPubMedCentral
83.
Huijg JM, Gebhardt WA, Dusseldorp E, Verheijden MW, van der Zouwe N, Middelkoop BJC, et al. Measuring determinants of implementation behavior: psychometric properties of a questionnaire based on the theoretical domains framework. Implement Sci. 2014;9:33.PubMedPubMedCentral
84.
Obrecht JA, Van Hulle VC, Ryan CS. Implementation of evidence-based practice for a pediatric pain assessment instrument. Clin Nurse Spec CNS. 2014;28(2):97–104.PubMed
85.
Beidas RS, Marcus S, Aarons GA, Hoagwood KE, Schoenwald S, Evans AC, et al. Predictors of community therapists’ use of therapy techniques in a large public mental health system. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(4):374–82.PubMedPubMedCentral
86.
Douglas NF. Organizational context associated with time spent evaluating language and cognitive-communicative impairments in skilled nursing facilities: survey results within an implementation science framework. J Commun Disord. 2016;60:1–13.PubMed
87.
Yamada J, Squires JE, Estabrooks CA, Victor C, Stevens B, CIHR Team in Children’s Pain. The role of organizational context in moderating the effect of research use on pain outcomes in hospitalized children: a cross sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):68.PubMedPubMedCentral
88.
Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. In: A product from the ESRC methods programme; 2006.
89.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
90.
O’Cathain A, Thomas K. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods. In: Qualitative research in health care. Oxford: Blackwell; 2006. p. 102–11.
91.
Cretin S, Shortell SM, Keeler EB. An evaluation of collaborative interventions to improve chronic illness care: framework and study design. Eval Rev. 2004;28(1):28–51.PubMed
92.
Lin MK, Marsteller JA, Shortell SM, Mendel P, Pearson M, Rosen M, et al. Motivation to change chronic illness care: results from a National Evaluation of quality improvement Collaboratives. Health Care Manag Rev. 2005;30(2):139.
93.
Goodwin C, Duranti A. Rethinking context: an introduction. In: Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
94.
Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7:37.PubMedPubMedCentral
95.
Daft RL. Organisation theory and design. 7th ed. Ohio: South-Western College Publishing; 2001.
96.
Plsek PE, Wilson T. Complexity science: complexity, leadership, and Management In Healthcare Organisations. BMJ. 2001;323:746–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
97.
Begun JW, Zimmerman B, Dooley KJ. Health care Organisations as complex adaptive systems. In: Advances in Health Care Organization Theory: Wiley; 2004. p. 253–88.
98.
99.
Braithwaite J, Churruca K, Long JC, Ellis LA, Herkes J. When complexity science meets implementation science: a theoretical and empirical analysis of systems change. BioMed Cent Med. 2018;16(63).
100.
Hawe P, Bond L, Butler H. Knowledge theories can inform evaluation practice: what can a complexity lens add? New Dir Eval. 2009;124:89–100.
101.
102.
Churruca K, Ludlow K, Taylor N, Long JC, Best S, Braithwaite J. The time has come: embedded implementation research for health care improvement. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019:1–8.
103.
Van Herck P, Vanhaecht K, Deneckere S, Bellemans J, Panella M, Barbieri A, et al. Key interventions and outcomes in joint arthroplasty clinical pathways: a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16:39–49.PubMed
104.
105.
Ovretveit JC, Shekelle PG, Hempel S, Pronovost P, Rubenstein L, Taylor SL, et al. How does context affect interventions to improve patient safety? An assessment of evidence from studies of five patient safety practices and proposals for research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:604–10.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Defining and assessing context in healthcare implementation studies: a systematic review
Authors
L. Rogers
A. De Brún
E. McAuliffe
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05212-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Health Services Research 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

Online behaviour change technique training to support healthcare staff ‘Make Every Contact Count’

Research article

Does disease management for diabetic nephropathy reduce medical expenditure? Evidence from a three-period difference-in-differences analysis

Research article

Adverse drug reactions in primary care: a scoping review

Research article

Lived experiences: a focus group pilot study within the MentALLY project of mental healthcare among European users

Research article

The impacts of quality improvement on maternal and newborn health: preliminary findings from a health system integrated intervention in four Ethiopian regions

Research article

The impact of hospital language on the rate of in-hospital harm. A retrospective cohort study of home care recipients in Ontario, Canada