TY - JOUR

T1 - Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance paper 4

T2 - methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation

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

N1 - Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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 - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.028

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.028

M3 - Article

C2 - 29223325

VL - 97

SP - 59

EP - 69

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - May

ER -