Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 4

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)59-69
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume97
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Uncertainty

Cite this

Cargo, Margaret ; Harris, Janet ; Pantoja, Tomas ; Booth, Andrew ; Harden, Angela ; Hannes, Karin ; Thomas, James ; Flemming, Kate ; Garside, Ruth ; Noyes, Jane. / Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 4. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2018 ; Vol. 97. pp. 59-69.
@article{819a21a871ba44228bbbffeb2308f8cc,
title = "Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 4",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Cochrane, Implementation, Mixed-method synthesis, Process evaluation, Qualitative evidence synthesis, Systematic reviews",
author = "Margaret Cargo and Janet Harris and Tomas Pantoja and Andrew Booth and Angela Harden and Karin Hannes and James Thomas and Kate Flemming and Ruth Garside and Jane Noyes",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.028",
language = "English",
volume = "97",
pages = "59--69",
journal = "Journal of Chronic Diseases",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

Cargo, M, Harris, J, Pantoja, T, Booth, A, Harden, A, Hannes, K, Thomas, J, Flemming, K, Garside, R & Noyes, J 2018, 'Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 4', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 97, pp. 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.028

Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 4. / Cargo, Margaret; Harris, Janet; Pantoja, Tomas; Booth, Andrew; Harden, Angela; Hannes, Karin; Thomas, James; Flemming, Kate; Garside, Ruth; Noyes, Jane.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 97, 05.2018, p. 59-69.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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

VL - 97

SP - 59

EP - 69

JO - Journal of Chronic Diseases

JF - Journal of Chronic Diseases

SN - 0895-4356

ER -