Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A Mixed-Method Tool for Complex Implementation Questions.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Laura G Hill, Brittany Rhoades Cooper, Louise A Parker
{"title":"Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A Mixed-Method Tool for Complex Implementation Questions.","authors":"Laura G Hill,&nbsp;Brittany Rhoades Cooper,&nbsp;Louise A Parker","doi":"10.1007/s10935-019-00536-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The translation and scale-up of evidence-based programs require new methods to guide implementation decisions across varying contexts. As programs are translated to real-world settings, variability is introduced. Some program components may have minor roles to play in producing positive outcomes, and some may have major roles, but only if adapted to meet different contextual demands. While some sources of variability are likely to improve program outcomes, we currently lack methods that allow us to determine the critical components or combinations of components that serve as causal pathways to a desired outcome and then to advise practitioners accordingly. In this paper, we introduce a promising tool for this purpose and illustrate its use in a translational research context. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is often used to examine causality in situations that have complex, multiply-determined outcomes. The basic premise of QCA is that different sets of causal conditions, or causal pathways, may lead to a single outcome (the principle of equifinality). We applied QCA to a selection of the highest- and lowest-performing programs from a multi-year two-state dissemination of The Strengthening Families Program for Parents and Adolescents 10-14 to determine which components or combinations of components at the implementation, program delivery, and participant levels produced desired participant outcomes. In particular, we examined which components were necessary (i.e., in the absence of these factors, the outcome didnot occur), and which were sufficient (i.e., in the presence of these factors, the outcome always occurred). Results demonstrated that certain conditions were necessary for program success. In addition, given those necessary conditions, there were two sets of conditions sufficient to produce success, regardless of the presence or absence of any of the others. QCA, not previously used in prevention science research, helps to illuminate causal pathways, leading to concrete, evidence-based implementation decisions that facilitate generalization and scale-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":47644,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Primary Prevention","volume":"40 1","pages":"69-87"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10935-019-00536-5","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Primary Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-019-00536-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

The translation and scale-up of evidence-based programs require new methods to guide implementation decisions across varying contexts. As programs are translated to real-world settings, variability is introduced. Some program components may have minor roles to play in producing positive outcomes, and some may have major roles, but only if adapted to meet different contextual demands. While some sources of variability are likely to improve program outcomes, we currently lack methods that allow us to determine the critical components or combinations of components that serve as causal pathways to a desired outcome and then to advise practitioners accordingly. In this paper, we introduce a promising tool for this purpose and illustrate its use in a translational research context. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is often used to examine causality in situations that have complex, multiply-determined outcomes. The basic premise of QCA is that different sets of causal conditions, or causal pathways, may lead to a single outcome (the principle of equifinality). We applied QCA to a selection of the highest- and lowest-performing programs from a multi-year two-state dissemination of The Strengthening Families Program for Parents and Adolescents 10-14 to determine which components or combinations of components at the implementation, program delivery, and participant levels produced desired participant outcomes. In particular, we examined which components were necessary (i.e., in the absence of these factors, the outcome didnot occur), and which were sufficient (i.e., in the presence of these factors, the outcome always occurred). Results demonstrated that certain conditions were necessary for program success. In addition, given those necessary conditions, there were two sets of conditions sufficient to produce success, regardless of the presence or absence of any of the others. QCA, not previously used in prevention science research, helps to illuminate causal pathways, leading to concrete, evidence-based implementation decisions that facilitate generalization and scale-up.

定性比较分析:复杂实施问题的混合方法工具。
以证据为基础的项目的转化和推广需要新的方法来指导不同背景下的实施决策。当程序被转换到现实世界的设置时,可变性被引入。一些程序组件可能在产生积极结果中扮演次要角色,而一些可能扮演主要角色,但只有在适应不同的上下文需求时才能发挥作用。虽然一些可变性的来源可能会改善项目结果,但我们目前缺乏方法,使我们能够确定作为达到预期结果的因果途径的关键组成部分或组成部分的组合,然后相应地向从业者提供建议。在本文中,我们为此目的介绍了一个有前途的工具,并说明了它在翻译研究背景下的使用。定性比较分析(QCA)通常用于在具有复杂的、多重决定的结果的情况下检查因果关系。QCA的基本前提是,不同的因果条件集或因果途径可能导致单一结果(等性原则)。我们将QCA应用于10-14年两州传播的“父母和青少年强化家庭项目”中表现最好和最差的项目,以确定在实施、项目交付和参与者水平上,哪些组成部分或组成部分的组合产生了期望的参与者结果。特别是,我们检查了哪些组成部分是必要的(即,在没有这些因素的情况下,结果不会发生),哪些是充分的(即,在存在这些因素的情况下,结果总是发生)。结果表明,某些条件是项目成功的必要条件。此外,鉴于这些必要条件,有两组条件足以产生成功,而不管其他条件是否存在。QCA以前未用于预防科学研究,它有助于阐明因果途径,导致具体的、基于证据的实施决策,从而促进推广和扩大。
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
Journal of Primary Prevention
Journal of Primary Prevention PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: The Journal of Prevention is a multidisciplinary journal that publishes manuscripts aimed at reducing negative social and health outcomes and promoting human health and well-being. It publishes high-quality research that discusses evidence-based interventions, policies, and practices. The editions cover a wide range of prevention science themes and value diverse populations, age groups, and methodologies. Our target audiences are prevention scientists, practitioners, and policymakers from diverse geographic locations. Specific types of papers published in the journal include Original Research, Research Methods, Practitioner Narrative, Debate, Brief Reports, Letter to the Editor, Policy, and Reviews. The selection of articles for publication is based on their innovation, contribution to the field of prevention, and quality. The Journal of Prevention differs from other similar journals in the field by offering a more culturally and geographically diverse team of editors, a broader range of subjects and methodologies, and the intention to attract the readership of prevention practitioners and other stakeholders (alongside scientists).
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信