Approach to authorship for quality improvement and implementation research.
Approach to authorship for quality improvement and implementation research.
复制标题
质量改进和实施研究的作者方法。
DOI：
10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011786
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Cowan,Ethan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Philips,Kaitlyn;Rinke,MichaelL;Cowan,Ethan
1999年，医学研究所（IOM）公布了使医疗保健更安全的迫切需要。1为了减少危害、提高性能并最大限度地降低成本，质量改进（QI）方法被认为是缩小质量差距的理想方法。1-3在随后的几年里，使用QI方法的出版物的传播显着增加。到2008年，第一版的质量改进报告卓越标准（SQUIRE）指南出版，以支持学术医疗保健改进工作的广度，可用性和严谨性。5七年后，修改后的SQUIRE 2.0指南支持了对干预措施和改进工作的全面、理论驱动的报告，以传播可推广和可操作的知识。6此外，学习型卫生系统的出现，IOM将其定义为一个系统，旨在为每位患者和提供者的合作医疗保健选择生成和应用最佳证据;推动发现过程，作为患者护理的自然产物;并确保医疗保健的创新、质量、安全和价值“，将医疗保健改善工作的价值带到了学术中心的前沿。7 8采用传统的研究方法和常规护理服务进行持续改进和数据驱动的学习现在很常见，并受到鼓励。因此，经典的人类受试者研究（传统上与常规临床护理分开）和QI研究之间的区别越来越模糊。较新的科学领域，如实施科学，侧重于如何实施和传播循证实践。9 QI研究使用不同的改进科学框架来了解干预措施对重要质量问题的影响。[10]虽然这些相关领域的重点是在临床护理中所做的工作（与已知的相比），但它们的定义在地方、国家和国际层面可能有所不同。无论如何，事实仍然是，使用不适合传统临床研究模式的研究方法的出版物的学术传播正在迅速扩大。现在是一个关键的时间来评估作者标准在这些领域的应用，这是SQUIRE 2.0所缺少的考虑因素。阐明QI和实施研究之间的异同超出了我们的讨论范围，也与我们的讨论无关。相反，我们认为，这些相关领域值得一个独特的方法来确定作者，这还没有得到充分的解决。我们讨论了如何围绕正在寻求的知识，团队组成和作者确定的时间的普遍性的问题可以影响谁符合QI和实施研究的作者标准。最后，我们提出了一系列问题，研究和项目团队领导者可以问自己，以更公平和适当地评估作者。
In 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) unveiled the dire need to make healthcare safer. 1 In an effort to reduce harm, improve performance and minimise cost, quality improvement (QI) methodology was identified as an ideal approach to closing the quality gap. 1–3 In the years that followed, the dissemination of publications using QI methods increased significantly. 4 By 2008, the first edition of the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) Guidelines was published in an effort to support the breadth, usability and rigour of scholarly healthcare improvement work. 5 Seven years later, the modified SQUIRE 2.0 Guidelines bolstered the thorough, theory-driven reporting of interventions and improvement efforts to spread generalisable and actionable knowledge. 6 Furthermore, the advent of learning health systems, defined by the IOM as a system ‘designed to generate and apply the best evidence for the collaborative healthcare choices for each patient and provider; to drive the process of discovery as a natural outgrowth of patient care; and to ensure innovation, quality, safety, and value in health care’, has brought the value of healthcare improvement work to the forefront in academic centres. 7 8 Incorporating continuous improvement and data-driven learning with traditional research methodology and routine care delivery is now common and encouraged. Consequently, the difference between classic human subject research (traditionally separate from routine clinical care) and QI research is increasingly blurred. Newer scientific fields such as implementation science focus on how to implement and disseminate evidence-based practices. 9 QI research uses a different framework of improvement science to understand the effects of an intervention on important quality problems. 10 While these related fields focus on what gets done in clinical care (compared with what is known), their definitions may differ at local, national and international levels. Regardless, the fact remains that scholarly dissemination of publications using research methodologies that do not fit into the traditional clinical research model is rapidly expanding. Now is a pivotal time to evaluate the application of authorship criteria to these fields—a consideration that is missing from SQUIRE 2.0. Elucidating similarities and differences between QI and implementation research is beyond the scope of and not relevant to our argument. Instead, we argue that these related fields warrant a unique approach to authorship determination, which has not been adequately addressed. We discuss how issues around the generalisability of the knowledge being sought, team composition and timing of authorship determination can impact who meets authorship criteria in QI and implementation research. We conclude by offering a series of questions research and project team leaders can ask themselves to assess authorship more fairly and appropriately.