ArticleJournal of global health2026
Factors affecting the collection of clinical data for quality improvement at a tertiary centre in Papua New Guinea: a qualitative study.
Article in Journal of global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The collection of clinical audit data are important for audit, research and other quality improvement processes. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face a range of challenges to effective data collection and use. In this study, we explored factors affecting the collection of clinical data at a tertiary centre in Papua New Guinea. Methods: This qualitative study was based on semi-structured individual interviews with healthcare workers at a tertiary hospital in Papua New Guinea. Questions focused on participants' experiences and perspectives regarding the collection of clinical data. We transcribed the interviews and analysed them using reflexive thematic analysis. We collected demographics using a short survey. Reporting of the research was guided by COREQ. Results: We conducted 20 interviews with predominantly nursing staff (n/N = 15/20; 75%). Of the participants, 16/20 (80%) had previously collected data for an audit or research project. Five themes and eight subthemes were conceptualised. Themes related to organisational culture, staff workload, data documentation practices, research infrastructure and study procedures. Although participants were motivated to complete data collection, they faced significant challenges that hindered their ability to do so. While staff often had to choose between collecting data and providing patient care, data collection initiatives could also improve patient care by improving communication between healthcare workers. Conclusions: In this study, we revealed numerous factors which affect the success of clinical data collection for audit and research purposes. These factors may be considered in the design of future initiatives. This has significant implications given the public health importance of strengthening data collection in Papua New Guinea, the Pacific Islands and LMICs in other regions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.