↓ Skip to main content

What methods are used to apply positive deviance within healthcare organisations? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Quality & Safety, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
66 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
115 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
339 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What methods are used to apply positive deviance within healthcare organisations? A systematic review
Published in
BMJ Quality & Safety, November 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004386
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth Baxter, Natalie Taylor, Ian Kellar, Rebecca Lawton

Abstract

The positive deviance approach focuses on those who demonstrate exceptional performance, despite facing the same constraints as others. 'Positive deviants' are identified and hypotheses about how they succeed are generated. These hypotheses are tested and then disseminated within the wider community. The positive deviance approach is being increasingly applied within healthcare organisations, although limited guidance exists and different methods, of varying quality, are used. This paper systematically reviews healthcare applications of the positive deviance approach to explore how positive deviance is defined, the quality of existing applications and the methods used within them, including the extent to which staff and patients are involved. Peer-reviewed articles, published prior to September 2014, reporting empirical research on the use of the positive deviance approach within healthcare, were identified from seven electronic databases. A previously defined four-stage process for positive deviance in healthcare was used as the basis for data extraction. Quality assessments were conducted using a validated tool, and a narrative synthesis approach was followed. 37 of 818 articles met the inclusion criteria. The positive deviance approach was most frequently applied within North America, in secondary care, and to address healthcare-associated infections. Research predominantly identified positive deviants and generated hypotheses about how they succeeded. The approach and processes followed were poorly defined. Research quality was low, articles lacked detail and comparison groups were rarely included. Applications of positive deviance typically lacked staff and/or patient involvement, and the methods used often required extensive resources. Further research is required to develop high quality yet practical methods which involve staff and patients in all stages of the positive deviance approach. The efficacy and efficiency of positive deviance must be assessed and compared with other quality improvement approaches. CRD42014009365.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 339 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 335 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 54 16%
Student > Master 41 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 7%
Student > Bachelor 19 6%
Other 86 25%
Unknown 76 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 50 15%
Social Sciences 27 8%
Psychology 13 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 3%
Other 53 16%
Unknown 100 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,085,580
of 26,601,484 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Quality & Safety
#407
of 2,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,004
of 396,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Quality & Safety
#12
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,601,484 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,611 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.