↓ Skip to main content

Continuous Quality Improvement and Comprehensive Primary Health Care: A Systems Framework to Improve Service Quality and Health Outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Continuous Quality Improvement and Comprehensive Primary Health Care: A Systems Framework to Improve Service Quality and Health Outcomes
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janya McCalman, Ross Bailie, Roxanne Bainbridge, Karen McPhail-Bell, Nikki Percival, Deborah Askew, Ruth Fagan, Komla Tsey

Abstract

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) processes for improving clinical care and health outcomes have been implemented by primary health-care services, with resultant health-care impacts. But only 10-20% of gain in health outcomes is contributed by health-care services; a much larger share is determined by social and cultural factors. This perspective paper argues that health care and health outcomes can be enhanced through applying CQI as a systems approach to comprehensive primary health care. Referring to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian context as an example, the authors provide a systems framework that includes strategies and conditions to facilitate evidence-based and local decision making by primary health-care services. The framework describes the integration of CQI vertically to improve linkages with governments and community members and horizontally with other sectors to influence the social and cultural determinants of health. Further, government and primary health-care service investment is required to support and extend integration and evaluation of CQI efforts vertically and horizontally.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Master 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Unspecified 7 5%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 59 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 10%
Unspecified 7 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 66 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,133,579
of 25,729,842 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,469
of 14,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,354
of 348,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#34
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,729,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,395 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,513 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.