You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Summary of included quantitative articles

From: The effectiveness of clinical networks in improving quality of care and patient outcomes: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

Authors Country Type of network Theme Study design Quality ratinga
Gale et al. 2012 [3] UK Managed clinical network for neonatal services Improving quality of care Observational – before and after Moderate
Greene et al. 2009 [31] UK Tayside Diabetes Managed Clinical Network Improving quality of care Observational – cross-sectional Moderate
Hamilton et al. 2005 [4] Scotland Managed clinical network for cardiac services Improving quality of care Quasi-experimental – interrupted time series Moderate
McClellan et al. 1999 [33] USA End Stage Renal Disease Networks Improving patient outcomes Observational – before and after Low
McCullough et al. 2014 [30] Scotland Scottish Sarcoma Managed Clinical Network Improving quality of care Observational – retrospective before and after Low
Ray-Coquard et al. 2002 [6] France Regional cancer network of hospitals Improving quality of care Quasi-experimental – controlled before and after Moderate
Ray-Coquard et al. 2005 [7] France Regional cancer network of hospitals Improving quality of care Observational – before and after Moderate
Spence & Henderson-Smart 2010 [32] Australia Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network Improving quality of care Observational – before and after Low
Tideman et al. 2014 [34] Australia Integrated cardiac support network Improving patient outcomes Observational – retrospective before and after Moderate
  1. aQuality rating definitions are as follows
  2. • High quality – design and conduct of study address risk of bias, appropriate measurement of outcomes, appropriate statistical and analytical methods, low drop-out rates, adequate reporting
  3. • Moderate quality – do not meet all criteria for a rating of good quality but no flaw is likely to cause major bias, some missing information
  4. • Low quality – significant biases including inappropriate design, conduct, analysis or reporting, large amounts of missing information, discrepancies in reporting