To the Editor In response to the editorial by Grady et al1 published in a recent issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, most quality improvement activities in medicine are not research, which is defined as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.”2(p94) Because of expectations for generalizability, study designs that test hypotheses, maximize external validity, and test multiple contexts, are expected. Conversely, most quality improvement, though such activities may be systematic and data driven, is not designed to be generalizable, prompting recommendations exempting quality improvement from usual human subjects research review.2
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Kamal AH, Agrawal S. Rigor in Quality Improvement Studies and the Role of Time-Series Methodologies. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(5):725. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0866
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: