Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews

Angela Harden, James Thomas, Margaret Cargo, Janet Harris, Tomas Pantoja, Kate Flemming, Andrew Booth, Ruth Garside, Karin Hannes, Jane Noyes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group develops and publishes guidance on the synthesis of qualitative and mixed-method evidence from process evaluations. Despite a proliferation of methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, less attention has focused on how to integrate these syntheses within intervention effectiveness reviews. In this article, we report updated guidance from the group on approaches, methods, and tools, which can be used to integrate the findings from quantitative studies evaluating intervention effectiveness with those from qualitative studies and process evaluations. We draw on conceptual analyses of mixed methods systematic review designs and the range of methods and tools that have been used in published reviews that have successfully integrated different types of evidence. We outline five key methods and tools as devices for integration which vary in terms of the levels at which integration takes place; the specialist skills and expertise required within the review team; and their appropriateness in the context of limited evidence. In situations where the requirement is the integration of qualitative and process evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews, we recommend the use of a sequential approach. Here, evidence from each tradition is synthesized separately using methods consistent with each tradition before integration takes place using a common framework. Reviews which integrate qualitative and process evaluation evidence alongside quantitative evidence on intervention effectiveness in a systematic way are rare. This guidance aims to support review teams to achieve integration and we encourage further development through reflection and formal testing.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)70-78
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume97
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Qualitative Research
Equipment and Supplies

Cite this

Harden, Angela ; Thomas, James ; Cargo, Margaret ; Harris, Janet ; Pantoja, Tomas ; Flemming, Kate ; Booth, Andrew ; Garside, Ruth ; Hannes, Karin ; Noyes, Jane. / Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2018 ; Vol. 97. pp. 70-78.
@article{3d56d553c68c4194be51cae7e04a915d,
title = "Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews",
abstract = "The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group develops and publishes guidance on the synthesis of qualitative and mixed-method evidence from process evaluations. Despite a proliferation of methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, less attention has focused on how to integrate these syntheses within intervention effectiveness reviews. In this article, we report updated guidance from the group on approaches, methods, and tools, which can be used to integrate the findings from quantitative studies evaluating intervention effectiveness with those from qualitative studies and process evaluations. We draw on conceptual analyses of mixed methods systematic review designs and the range of methods and tools that have been used in published reviews that have successfully integrated different types of evidence. We outline five key methods and tools as devices for integration which vary in terms of the levels at which integration takes place; the specialist skills and expertise required within the review team; and their appropriateness in the context of limited evidence. In situations where the requirement is the integration of qualitative and process evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews, we recommend the use of a sequential approach. Here, evidence from each tradition is synthesized separately using methods consistent with each tradition before integration takes place using a common framework. Reviews which integrate qualitative and process evaluation evidence alongside quantitative evidence on intervention effectiveness in a systematic way are rare. This guidance aims to support review teams to achieve integration and we encourage further development through reflection and formal testing.",
keywords = "Cochrane collaboration, Implementation research, Mixed methods research, Process evaluations, Qualitative evidence synthesis, Qualitative research, Systematic reviews, public health",
author = "Angela Harden and James Thomas and Margaret Cargo and Janet Harris and Tomas Pantoja and Kate Flemming and Andrew Booth and Ruth Garside and Karin Hannes and Jane Noyes",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.029",
language = "English",
volume = "97",
pages = "70--78",
journal = "Journal of Chronic Diseases",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews. / Harden, Angela; Thomas, James; Cargo, Margaret; Harris, Janet; Pantoja, Tomas; Flemming, Kate; Booth, Andrew; Garside, Ruth; Hannes, Karin; Noyes, Jane.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 97, 05.2018, p. 70-78.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews

AU - Harden, Angela

AU - Thomas, James

AU - Cargo, Margaret

AU - Harris, Janet

AU - Pantoja, Tomas

AU - Flemming, Kate

AU - Booth, Andrew

AU - Garside, Ruth

AU - Hannes, Karin

AU - Noyes, Jane

PY - 2018/5

Y1 - 2018/5

N2 - The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group develops and publishes guidance on the synthesis of qualitative and mixed-method evidence from process evaluations. Despite a proliferation of methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, less attention has focused on how to integrate these syntheses within intervention effectiveness reviews. In this article, we report updated guidance from the group on approaches, methods, and tools, which can be used to integrate the findings from quantitative studies evaluating intervention effectiveness with those from qualitative studies and process evaluations. We draw on conceptual analyses of mixed methods systematic review designs and the range of methods and tools that have been used in published reviews that have successfully integrated different types of evidence. We outline five key methods and tools as devices for integration which vary in terms of the levels at which integration takes place; the specialist skills and expertise required within the review team; and their appropriateness in the context of limited evidence. In situations where the requirement is the integration of qualitative and process evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews, we recommend the use of a sequential approach. Here, evidence from each tradition is synthesized separately using methods consistent with each tradition before integration takes place using a common framework. Reviews which integrate qualitative and process evaluation evidence alongside quantitative evidence on intervention effectiveness in a systematic way are rare. This guidance aims to support review teams to achieve integration and we encourage further development through reflection and formal testing.

AB - The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group develops and publishes guidance on the synthesis of qualitative and mixed-method evidence from process evaluations. Despite a proliferation of methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, less attention has focused on how to integrate these syntheses within intervention effectiveness reviews. In this article, we report updated guidance from the group on approaches, methods, and tools, which can be used to integrate the findings from quantitative studies evaluating intervention effectiveness with those from qualitative studies and process evaluations. We draw on conceptual analyses of mixed methods systematic review designs and the range of methods and tools that have been used in published reviews that have successfully integrated different types of evidence. We outline five key methods and tools as devices for integration which vary in terms of the levels at which integration takes place; the specialist skills and expertise required within the review team; and their appropriateness in the context of limited evidence. In situations where the requirement is the integration of qualitative and process evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews, we recommend the use of a sequential approach. Here, evidence from each tradition is synthesized separately using methods consistent with each tradition before integration takes place using a common framework. Reviews which integrate qualitative and process evaluation evidence alongside quantitative evidence on intervention effectiveness in a systematic way are rare. This guidance aims to support review teams to achieve integration and we encourage further development through reflection and formal testing.

KW - Cochrane collaboration

KW - Implementation research

KW - Mixed methods research

KW - Process evaluations

KW - Qualitative evidence synthesis

KW - Qualitative research

KW - Systematic reviews

KW - public health

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044786247&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.029

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.029

M3 - Article

VL - 97

SP - 70

EP - 78

JO - Journal of Chronic Diseases

JF - Journal of Chronic Diseases

SN - 0895-4356

ER -