Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/387605

Quality circles for quality improvement in primary health care: their effectiveness, gaps of knowledge, origins and significance - a scoping review

Rohrbasser, A.·Harris, J.·Mickan, S.·Wong, G.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BackgroundQuality circles, or similarly structured small groups in primary health care, such as peer review groups, consist of 6 to 12 professionals from the same background who meet regularly to improve their standard practice. This paper reports the results from a scoping search performed to clarify possible effectiveness, knowledge gaps, underlying concepts and significance.\n\nObjectivesTo gain insight into knowledge gaps and understanding of the effectiveness, origins and significance of quality circles.\n\nMethodsA search strategy was developed starting with quality circle in PubMed and the index terms from those articles revealed were then used as search terms to identify further papers. Repeating this process in collaboration with a librarian, search strings relating to quality circles were built, and databases searched up to December 2017. Any paper on structured quality circles or related small group work in primary health care was included when relevant to the objectives.\n\nResultsFrom 11973 citations, 82 background papers and 58 key papers were identified, in addition to 12 books and 10 websites. 19 studies, one paper summarizing three studies and one systematic review suggest that quality circles can be effective in behaviour change, though with varying effect sizes. Quality circles and their techniques are complex, as they are not standardized, and changes seem to depend on the topic and context, which requires further research into how and why they work in order to improve them. From their origins in industry, they are now used in primary health care in many countries for continuous medical education, continuous professional development and quality improvement.\n\nConclusionThe evidence on quality circles indicates that they can successfully change general practitioner behaviour. As they are a complex intervention, theory-driven research approaches are needed to understand and improve their effectiveness. This is of major importance because they play an important role in quality improvement in primary health care in many countries.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Rohrbasser, A., Harris, J., Mickan, S., Wong, G.. 2018-08-08. Quality circles for quality improvement in primary health care: their effectiveness, gaps of knowledge, origins and significance - a scoping review. https://doi.org/10.1101/387605

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

Biology Undergraduates Use of AI-Enabled Feedback to Revise Scientific Writing: Recipience and Barriers

Background: Instructors and education researchers are increasingly developing feedback with the assistance of generative AI, which we refer to as AI-enabled feedback, yet we do not know whether established understandings of feedback uptake and effectiveness apply similarly in AI-mediated contexts. This makes the recipience of AI-enabled feedback a central concern to understanding how to best support students in developing their scientific writing skills. This study examined how two teams of undergraduate biology students used AI-enabled feedback to revise their scientific writing, and the extent to which their revisions addressed that feedback. The teams revised their research proposal drafts after receiving AI-enabled feedback developed by their instructor with the aid of a custom AI tool. Results: Our findings show that AI-enabled feedback prompted actionable revision across both teams. Each team addressed approximately half of the feedback comments, indicating comparable levels of uptake despite their differing approaches to revision. We observed that both teams were inconsistent in providing the additional information and reasoning requested in the feedback, and they struggled to address comments requiring self-evaluation. Taken together, we see that students often addressed the more easily actionable parts of AI-enabled feedback while omitting more demanding revisions. Conclusions: These findings provide behavioral evidence of how students used AI-enabled feedback to revise their scientific writing. The observed patterns suggest that the content of AI-enabled feedback supported meaningful revision, while limitations in students agency, strategies, and volition likely shaped their implementation of comments. Although the degree of uptake observed in this study is encouraging, it is unlikely that a single application of generative AI within the feedback process will resolve all the challenges associated with feedback uptake.

scientific communication and education↗