Table 2

Characteristics of included studies

Topic, disease or conditionReferenceStudy design (control condition)Number of participants in collaborative/number of participants providing data for evaluation*Data collection method (number of participants)Effectiveness: short-term or long-term (sustained changes or spread of changes)Study set out to test determinant (yes/no)
Emergency careBartlett et al9UBA18 emergency departments
18 (I)
Self-reported progress data (18 teams)Short-term effectivenessNo
Asthma (children)Homer et al10RCT22 primary care practices
22 (I)
21 (C)
Patient telephone interview (530 (I), 591 (C))Short-term effectivenessNo
Acute myocardial infarctionCarlhed et al11CBA19 hospitals
19 (I)
19 (C)
National quality registry (3786 patients (I), 2940 (C))Short-term effectivenessYes
Fall prevention in nursing facilitiesColon-Emeric et al12BA with reference data42 nursing facilities
36 (I)
353 (reference group)
Patient chart review (832 (I))
Minimum dataset (falls)
Self-reported progress data (36 facilities)
Short-term effectivenessNo
Patient safetyLeape et al13Cross sectional, post intervention90 teams
90 (I)
Self-reported progress data
Questionnaire (58 hospital CEOs, 90 team leaders)
Short-term effectivenessYes
Paediatric preventive services in primary careYoung et al14UBA14 paediatric practicesPatient chart review
2 year olds:
initial sample 267 (B)
final sample 265 (A)
4 year olds:
initial sample 277 (B)
final sample 252 (A)
Short-term effectivenessNo
Catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICUAmarasingham et al15UBA108 ICUs
19 (I)
Patient chart review
Questionnaire (19 directors)
Short-term effectivenessNo
Diabetes care in community health centresChin et al16UBA followed by an RCT studying long-term effects34 community health centres
16 (standard intensity)
16 (high intensity)
Patient chart review
1174 (I)/1190 (C) (B)
1249 (I)/1168 (C) (A)
2212 (C and I) (follow up)
Short-term effectivenessYes
Preventive services for healthy newborns during birth hospitalisationMercier et al17UBA12 hospitals
12 (I)
Patient chart review
359 newborns (B)
360 newborns (A)
Short-term effectivenessNo
Paediatric preventive and developmental primary careLannon et al18UBAClinics (16)
15 (I)
Patient chart review
171 charts (B; 15 practices)
305 charts (A; 8 practices)
Questionnaire (15 teams)
Short-term effectivenessNo
StrokeSchouten et al19BA with reference data23 stroke services
23 (I)
Self-reported progress data, 4549 patients (I)
LOHS registries (81 hospitals, reference data)
Questionnaire (21 stroke services; 73 team members)
Short-term effectivenessYes,
 theory based
Four collaboratives:
• Access and efficiency
• Primary care
• Complications in ICU
• Adverse drug events
• Surgical site infections 
Nembhard20Cross sectional, post intervention78 teams
53 (I)
Questionnaire (217 team members)
Self-reported progress data
Interview (9 randomly selected team leaders)
Short-term effectivenessYes
Five VHA collaboratives:
• Adverse drug events
• Patient safety
• Home-based dementia primary care
• Compensation and pension examination
• Falls
Mills and Weeks21UBA134 teams
134 (I)
Questionnaire (93% of the teams)
Self-reported progress data (134 teams)
Short-term effectivenessYes, theory based
VHA Adverse drug eventsWeeks et al22UBA with follow-up data27 teamsSelf-reported progress data
Questionnaire (teams)
Telephone interview (27 teams)
Short-term effectiveness
6 months after the end of the collaborative:
Sustained changes
Spread
Yes, theory based
VHA Patient safetyMills et al23UBA with follow-up diffusion data40 teams
22 (I)
Questionnaire
Self-reported progress data (22 teams)
Telephone Interview (chief nurses inside and outside participating centres)
Short-term effectiveness
12 months after the end of the collaborative:
Spread
Yes, theory based
VHA FallsNeily et al24Follow up data from a UBA37 teamsTelephone interview (34 primary contacts)Short-term effectiveness
12 months after the end of the collaborative:
Sustained changes
Spread
Yes, theory based
HIVLandon et al25CBA62 clinics
44 (I)
25 (C)
Patient chart review
6406 (I)
3580 (C)
Questionnaire (clinics)
Short-term effectivenessNo
HIVMcInnes et al26CBA62 clinics
54 (I)
37 (C)
Questionnaire:
Clinicians
104 (I)
90 (C)
Medical directors
34 (I)
28 (C)
Program administrators
45 (I)
35 (C)
Short-term effectivenessNo
Four collaboratives on chronic illness:
• Asthma
• Diabetes
• Congestive heart failure
• Depression
Shortell et al27§Cross sectional, post intervention88 teams
40 (I)
Questionnaire (40 teams)Short-term effectivenessYes, theory based
Four collaboratives on chronic illness:
• Asthma
• Diabetes
• Congestive heart failure
• Depression
Marsteller et al28§Cross sectional, post intervention95 teams
73 (I)
Self-reported progress data
Telephone interview (team contact person)
Short-term effectivenessYes, theory based
DiabetesDaniel et al29§UBA47 teams
47 (I)
Patient registry (method unclear)Short-term effectivenessNo
Chronic heart failure§Baker et al30Controlled, cross sectional13 clinics
6 (I)
6 (C)
Patient telephone survey [367 (I), 414 (C)]Short-term effectivenessYes
DepressionMeredith et al31§Cross sectional, post intervention23 primary care organisations
17 (I)
Self-reported progress data
Telephone interview (team leader)
Short-term effectiveness
18 months after the end of the collaborative:
Sustained changes
Spread
Yes, theory based
  • *Teams participating in a collaborative quality improvement project do not always participate in an evaluation of determinants of success of that collaborative—for this reason column 4 reports both figures.

  • †Papers by Weeks et al,22 Mills et al23 and Neily et al24 describe three different Veteran's Health Affairs collaboratives. The paper by Mills and Weeks21 includes these collaboratives and two others. While most of Mills et al's23 determinant and effect parameters overlap those of Mills and Weeks21 the paper also contains information on spread for safety that is not included in the Mills and Weeks paper.

  • ‡Papers by Landon et al25 and McInnes et al27 report on the same HIV collaborative but use different effect parameters.

  • §Papers by Daniel et al,29 Baker et al30 and Meredith et al31 describe collaboratives undertaken as part of the Improving Chronic Illness Care Program. All evaluate different determinants and different effect parameters. The papers by Shortell et al27 and Marsteller et al28 include these collaboratives. They focus on different aspects of team functioning and interaction as potential determinants.

  • BA, before–after study; (C), control group; CBA, controlled before–after study; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; (I), intervention group; ICU, intensive care unit; LOHS, length of hospital stay; RCT, randomised controlled trial; UBA, uncontrolled before–after study; VHA, Veterans Health Affairs.