Search results

The various quality improvement (QI) frameworks and maturity models described in the health services literature consider some aspects of QI while excluding others. This paper aims to present a concerted attempt to create a quality improvement maturity model (QIMM) derived from holistic principles underlying the successful implementation of system-wide QI programmes.

A hybrid methodology involving a systematic review (Phase 1) of over 270 empirical research articles and books developed the basis for the proposed QIMM. It was followed by expert interviews to refine the core constructs and ground the proposed QIMM in contemporary QI practice (Phase 2). The experts included academics in two academic conferences and 59 QI managers from the New Zealand health-care system. In-depth interviews were conducted with QI managers to ascertain their views on the QIMM and its applicability in their respective health organisations (HOs).

The QIMM consists of four dimensions of organisational maturity, namely, strategic, process, supply chain and philosophical maturity. These dimensions progress through six stages, namely, identification, ad-hoc, formal, process-driven, optimised enterprise and finally a way of life. The application of the QIMM by the QI managers revealed that the scope of QI and the breadth of the principles adopted by the QI managers and their HOs in New Zealand is limited.

The importance of QI in health systems cannot be overstated. The proposed QIMM can help HOs diagnose their current state and provide a guide to action achieving a desirable state of quality improvement maturity. This QIMM avoids reliance on any single QI methodology. HOs – using the QIMM – should retain full control over the process of selecting any QI methodology or may even cherry-pick principles to suit their needs as long as they understand and appreciate the true nature and scope of quality overstated. The proposed QIMM can help HOs diagnose their current state and provide a guide to action achieving a desirable state of quality improvement maturity. This QIMM avoids reliance on any single QI methodology. HOs – using the QIMM – should retain full control over the process of selecting any QI methodology or may even cherry-pick principles to suit their needs as long as they understand and appreciate the true nature and scope of quality.

This paper contributes new knowledge by presenting a maturity model with an integrated set of quality principles for HOs and their extended supply networks.

Foresight J's journey started in 1999, and in 2022, it marked the conclusion of its 24 years of publication. This paper aims to provide an overall overview of important research trends published in Foresight J between 1999 and 2022 by conducting a quantitative analysis of the journal’s literature. The overarching goal is to provide valuable insights into the dynamics of scholarly communication, aiding researchers, institutions and policymakers in assessing the significance and influence of academic work, guiding future research directions and academic evaluation.

The two bibliometrics methodologies that make up the methodology of this article are scientific mapping and performance analysis. Authors have explained the development and composition of the Foresight J using these methods. The SCOPUS database is being used in current research to analyse several dimensions, such as the evolution of publications by year, the most cited papers, core authors and researchers, leading countries and prolific institutions. Moreover, the conceptual structure, scope, burst detection and co-occurrence analysis of the journal are mapped using network visualization software such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace and RStudio.

With a strong track record of output over the years, Foresight J has continued to develop in terms of publications. It is determined that “Saritas” is the author with the greatest overall impact. However, according to SCOPUS bibliometric data, “Blackman” and “Richardson” are the authors with the greatest relevance in terms of the quantity of articles. In addition, it becomes apparent that the USA, Australia and the UK are very productive nations in terms of publications. The most popular fields of the journal have always been forecasting, foresight, scenario planning, strategic planning, decision-making, technology and sustainable development. These are also the author keywords that appear the most frequently. In contrast, new study themes in the Foresight J include digital technologies, innovation, sustainability, blockchain, artificial intelligence and sustainability.

Several noteworthy research implications are provided by the bibliometric study of Foresight J. “Saritas” is the author with the most overall impact, indicating that the precise contributions and influence of this researcher in the fields of forecasting, foresight and related fields. Given that “Blackman” and “Richardson” are well-known writers, it is also critical to examine the scope and complexity of their contributions to potentially identify recurring themes or patterns in their writing. The geographic productivity results, which show that the USA, Australia and the UK are the top three countries for Foresight J publications, may encourage more research into regional differences, patterns of collaboration and the worldwide distribution of research endeavours in the context of forecasting and foresight. Popular fields including scenario planning, forecasting, foresight and sustainable development are consistent, indicating persistent research interests. Examining the causes of these subjects’ ongoing relevance can reveal information about the consistency and development of scholarly interests over time.

Foresight J’s bibliometric analysis has real-world applications for many stakeholders. It helps editors and publishers make strategic decisions about outreach and content by providing insights regarding the journal’s influence. Assessing organizational and author productivity helps institutions allocate resources more effectively. Policymakers acquire an instrument to evaluate research patterns and distribute funds efficiently. In general, bibliometric study of a journal helps decisionmakers in academic publishing make well-informed choices that maximize the potential of options for authors, editors, institutions and policymakers.

The societal ramifications of bibliometrically analysing Foresight J from 1999 and 2022 are substantial. This analysis highlights, over the past 24 years, research trends, technological developments and societal priorities have changed by methodically looking through the journal’s articles. Gaining knowledge about the academic environment covered by the journal can help raise public awareness of important topics and promote critical thinking. In addition, the analysis can support evidence-based decision-making by alerting decision makers to the influential research that was published in Foresight J. This could have an impact on the course of policies pertaining to innovation, technology and societal development.

This study presents a first comprehensive article that provides a general overview of the main trends and patterns of the research over the Foresight J’s history since its inception. Also, the paper will help the scientific community to know the value and impact of Foresight J.

This paper aims to examine the global pattern of growth and development of eHealth research based on publication headcount, and analysis of the characteristics, of the keywords used by authors and indexers to represent their research content during 1945–2019.

This study adopted a bibliometric research design and a quantitative approach. The source of the data was Elsevier’s Scopus database. The search query involved multiple search terms because researchers’ choice of keywords varies very significantly. The search for eHealth research publications was limited to conference papers and research articles published before 2020.

eHealth originated in the late 1990s, but it has become an envelope term for describing much older terms such as telemedicine, and its variants that originated much earlier. The keywords were spread through the 27 Scopus Subject Areas, with medicine (44.04%), engineering (12.84%) and computer science (11.47%) leading, while by Scopus All Science Journal Classification Health Sciences accounted for 55.83% of the keywords. Physical sciences followed with 30.62%. The classifications social sciences and life sciences made only single-digit contributions. eHealth is about meeting health needs, but the work of engineers and computer scientists is very outstanding in achieving this goal.

This study demonstrates that eHealth is an unexplored aspect of health literature and highlights the nature of the accumulated literature in the area. It further demonstrates that eHealth is a multidisciplinary area that is attractive to researchers from all disciplines because of its sensitive focus on health, and therefore requires pooling and integration of human resources and expertise, methods and approaches.