TY - JOUR
T1 - Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 4
AU - Cargo, Margaret
AU - Harris, Janet
AU - Pantoja, Tomas
AU - Booth, Andrew
AU - Harden, Angela
AU - Hannes, Karin
AU - Thomas, James
AU - Flemming, Kate
AU - Garside, Ruth
AU - Noyes, Jane
PY - 2018/5
Y1 - 2018/5
N2 - Objectives: This article provides reviewers with guidance on methods for identifying and processing evidence to understand intervention implementation. Study Design and Setting: Strategies, tools, and methods are applied to the systematic review process to illustrate how process and implementation can be addressed using quantitative, qualitative, and other sources of evidence (i.e., descriptive textual and nonempirical). Results: Reviewers can take steps to navigate the heterogeneity and level of uncertainty present in the concepts, measures, and methods used to assess implementation. Activities can be undertaken in advance of a Cochrane quantitative review to develop program theory and logic models that situate implementation in the causal chain. Four search strategies are offered to retrieve process and implementation evidence. Recommendations are made for addressing rigor or risk of bias in process evaluation or implementation evidence. Strategies are recommended for locating and extracting data from primary studies. The basic logic is presented to assist reviewers to make initial review-level judgments about implementation failure and theory failure. Conclusion: Although strategies, tools, and methods can assist reviewers to address process and implementation using quantitative, qualitative, and other forms of evidence, few exemplar reviews exist. There is a need for further methodological development and trialing of proposed approaches.
AB - Objectives: This article provides reviewers with guidance on methods for identifying and processing evidence to understand intervention implementation. Study Design and Setting: Strategies, tools, and methods are applied to the systematic review process to illustrate how process and implementation can be addressed using quantitative, qualitative, and other sources of evidence (i.e., descriptive textual and nonempirical). Results: Reviewers can take steps to navigate the heterogeneity and level of uncertainty present in the concepts, measures, and methods used to assess implementation. Activities can be undertaken in advance of a Cochrane quantitative review to develop program theory and logic models that situate implementation in the causal chain. Four search strategies are offered to retrieve process and implementation evidence. Recommendations are made for addressing rigor or risk of bias in process evaluation or implementation evidence. Strategies are recommended for locating and extracting data from primary studies. The basic logic is presented to assist reviewers to make initial review-level judgments about implementation failure and theory failure. Conclusion: Although strategies, tools, and methods can assist reviewers to address process and implementation using quantitative, qualitative, and other forms of evidence, few exemplar reviews exist. There is a need for further methodological development and trialing of proposed approaches.
KW - Cochrane
KW - Implementation
KW - Mixed-method synthesis
KW - Process evaluation
KW - Qualitative evidence synthesis
KW - Systematic reviews
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040552650&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/cochrane-qualitative-implementation-methods-group-guidance-seriespaper-4-methods-assessing-evidence
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.028
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.028
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85040552650
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 97
SP - 59
EP - 69
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -