• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of qualsafetyQuality and Safety in Health CareCurrent TOCInstructions for authors
Qual Saf Health Care. Feb 2003; 12(1): 40–46.
PMCID: PMC1743654

Process evaluation on quality improvement interventions


To design potentially successful quality improvement (QI) interventions, it is crucial to make use of detailed breakdowns of the implementation processes of successful and unsuccessful interventions. Process evaluation can throw light on the mechanisms responsible for the result obtained in the intervention group. It enables researchers and implementers to (1) describe the intervention in detail, (2) check actual exposure to the intervention, and (3) describe the experience of those exposed. This paper presents a framework containing features of QI interventions that might influence success. Attention is paid to features of the target group, the implementers or change agents, the frequency of intervention activities, and features of the information imparted. The framework can be used as a starting point to address all three aspects of process evaluation mentioned above. Process evaluation can be applied to small scale improvement projects, controlled QI studies, and large scale QI programmes; in each case it plays a different role.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (142K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group. BMJ. 1998 Aug 15;317(7156):465–468. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Grol R. Personal paper. Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. BMJ. 1997 Aug 16;315(7105):418–421. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Szczepura A, Wilmot J, Davies C, Fletcher J. Effectiveness and cost of different strategies for information feedback in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1994 Jan;44(378):19–24. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Nattinger AB, Panzer RJ, Janus J. Improving the utilization of screening mammography in primary care practices. Arch Intern Med. 1989 Sep;149(9):2087–2092. [PubMed]
  • Hulscher ME, van Drenth BB, Mokkink HG, van De Lisdonk EH, van Der Wouden JC, van Weel C, Grol RP. Tailored outreach visits as a method for implementing guidelines and improving preventive care. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998 Apr;10(2):105–112. [PubMed]
  • Hermens RP, Hak E, Hulscher ME, Braspenning JC, Grol RP. Adherence to guidelines on cervical cancer screening in general practice: programme elements of successful implementation. Br J Gen Pract. 2001 Nov;51(472):897–903. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Pope C, van Royen P, Baker R. Qualitative methods in research on healthcare quality. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Jun;11(2):148–152. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Baskerville NB, Hogg W, Lemelin J. Process evaluation of a tailored multifaceted approach to changing family physician practice patterns improving preventive care. J Fam Pract. 2001 Mar;50(3):W242–W249. [PubMed]

Articles from Quality & Safety in Health Care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group


Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...


  • Cited in Books
    Cited in Books
    PubMed Central articles cited in books
  • PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...