Factor selection in configurational comparative analysis - guidance for implementation researchers.

IF 3.5
Laura Caci, Kathrin Blum, Lauren Clack, Bianca Albers
{"title":"Factor selection in configurational comparative analysis - guidance for implementation researchers.","authors":"Laura Caci, Kathrin Blum, Lauren Clack, Bianca Albers","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-00981-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Configurational comparative methods (CCMs) are designed for the systematic comparison of case data to identify necessary and sufficient conditions for an outcome. The complex interplay of contextual factors, implementation strategies, and intervention components makes CCMs particularly suitable for implementation studies. Factor selection is a stage in CCMs during which researchers determine a limited set of variables of interest for analysis. Guidance that helps implementation researchers to select a manageable set of factors from a plethora of potentially interesting components is warranted but lacking, especially, for pre-data collection. We provide such guidance with an emphasis on (1) intentional data collection, and (2) broad engagement of interest-holders across different stages of factor selection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our suggested approach consists of four stages: (1) factor identification, (2) factor prioritization, (3) factor determination, and (4) factor operationalization. Throughout these stages, we highlight opportunities for engaging interest-holders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We illustrate all stages using experience from a multinational hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial in the field of infection prevention. First, we conducted a systematic review to identify potentially relevant factors. Second, we applied the Nominal Group Technique in meetings with interest-holders to prioritize previously identified factors. Third, we conducted two project workshops to decide on a final set of factors. Fourth, we operationalized factors into measurable units and assessed them using qualitative and quantitative methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We present a methodology and applied case example for pre-data collection factor selection for CCMs. The proposed method comprises four stages, each requiring implementation researchers to balance scientific rigor with pragmatism, while ensuring meaningful engagement of interest-holders. This guidance closes a gap in existing recommendations, which have primarily focused on factor selection during data analysis. Making CCMs more accessible and increasing their use should remain a central priority in implementation science.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13540947/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation science communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-00981-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Configurational comparative methods (CCMs) are designed for the systematic comparison of case data to identify necessary and sufficient conditions for an outcome. The complex interplay of contextual factors, implementation strategies, and intervention components makes CCMs particularly suitable for implementation studies. Factor selection is a stage in CCMs during which researchers determine a limited set of variables of interest for analysis. Guidance that helps implementation researchers to select a manageable set of factors from a plethora of potentially interesting components is warranted but lacking, especially, for pre-data collection. We provide such guidance with an emphasis on (1) intentional data collection, and (2) broad engagement of interest-holders across different stages of factor selection.

Methods: Our suggested approach consists of four stages: (1) factor identification, (2) factor prioritization, (3) factor determination, and (4) factor operationalization. Throughout these stages, we highlight opportunities for engaging interest-holders.

Results: We illustrate all stages using experience from a multinational hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial in the field of infection prevention. First, we conducted a systematic review to identify potentially relevant factors. Second, we applied the Nominal Group Technique in meetings with interest-holders to prioritize previously identified factors. Third, we conducted two project workshops to decide on a final set of factors. Fourth, we operationalized factors into measurable units and assessed them using qualitative and quantitative methods.

Conclusions: We present a methodology and applied case example for pre-data collection factor selection for CCMs. The proposed method comprises four stages, each requiring implementation researchers to balance scientific rigor with pragmatism, while ensuring meaningful engagement of interest-holders. This guidance closes a gap in existing recommendations, which have primarily focused on factor selection during data analysis. Making CCMs more accessible and increasing their use should remain a central priority in implementation science.

构型比较分析中的因素选择——对实施研究人员的指导。
背景:配置比较方法(CCMs)是为系统比较病例数据而设计的,以确定结果的必要和充分条件。背景因素、实施策略和干预成分的复杂相互作用使ccm特别适合实施研究。因子选择是CCMs的一个阶段,在此期间,研究人员确定一组有限的感兴趣的变量进行分析。有必要提供指导,帮助实施研究人员从大量可能有趣的组件中选择一组可管理的因素,但缺乏指导,特别是对于预数据收集。我们提供这样的指导,强调(1)有意的数据收集,以及(2)在要素选择的不同阶段广泛参与利益相关者。方法:我们建议的方法包括四个阶段:(1)因素识别,(2)因素优先排序,(3)因素确定,(4)因素运作化。在这些阶段,我们强调吸引利益相关者的机会。结果:我们利用感染预防领域的多国混合实施-有效性试验的经验说明了所有阶段。首先,我们进行了系统回顾,以确定潜在的相关因素。其次,我们在与利益相关者的会议中应用名义小组技术来优先考虑先前确定的因素。第三,我们进行了两次项目研讨会,以确定最终的一组因素。第四,我们将因素操作化为可测量的单位,并使用定性和定量方法对其进行评估。结论:我们提出了一种方法,并应用了CCMs数据收集前因素选择的案例。提出的方法包括四个阶段,每个阶段都要求实施研究人员在科学严谨性与实用主义之间取得平衡,同时确保利益相关者的有意义参与。该指南填补了现有建议的空白,现有建议主要侧重于数据分析期间的因素选择。使CCMs更容易获得并增加其使用应该仍然是实施科学的中心优先事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书