Table 2 CMO contribution and methodological quality
From: The sustainability of Lean in pediatric healthcare: a realist review
Published primary research studies (n = 6) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author, year, country, citation | Design | MMAT score | Objective versus subjective data | CMO contribution level | Theory |
Tekes, 2015, USA [42] | Quantitative descriptive (pre-post survey) | 75% | Objective data | Low | None |
Czulada, 2015, USA [43] | Multi-methods | 0% | Objective data | Medium | None |
Harrison, 2016, USA [45] | Mixed-methods | 25% | Objective data | High | CFIR |
Northway, 2015, Canada [47] | Quantitative descriptive | 25% | Objective data | Medium | None |
Mazzacato, 2014, Sweden [48] | Mixed-methods | 75% | Objective data | High | Realist |
Mazzacato, 2012, Sweden [49] | Mixed-methods | 75% | Objective data | High | None |
Published quality improvement case studies (n = 2) | |||||
Wong, 2016, Canada [44] | QI project commentary/descriptive | n/a | Subjective data | Medium | None |
Luton, 2015, USA [46] | QI project commentary/descriptive | n/a | Subjective data | Medium | None |
Unpublished quality improvement case report (n = 3) | |||||
Carman, AHRQ, 2014, USA [50] | Case report commentary/descriptive | n/a | Objective data | Medium | None |
Hung, AHRQ, 2016, USA [51] | Case report Multi-methods | n/a | Objective data | Medium | CFIR |
Rotter, 2014, Canada [52] | Evaluation report Multi-methods | n/a | Objective data | High | Realist |