定性方法如何应用于实施科学研究?系统范围审查的结果。

IF 2.6
Implementation research and practice Pub Date : 2025-08-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26334895251367470
Ashley Hagaman, Elizabeth C Rhodes, Carlin F Aloe, Rachel Hennein, Mary L Peng, Maryann Deyling, Michael Georgescu, Kate Nyhan, Anna Schwartz, Kristal Zhou, Marina Katague, Emilie Egger, Donna Spiegelman
{"title":"定性方法如何应用于实施科学研究?系统范围审查的结果。","authors":"Ashley Hagaman, Elizabeth C Rhodes, Carlin F Aloe, Rachel Hennein, Mary L Peng, Maryann Deyling, Michael Georgescu, Kate Nyhan, Anna Schwartz, Kristal Zhou, Marina Katague, Emilie Egger, Donna Spiegelman","doi":"10.1177/26334895251367470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Qualitative methods are essential for providing an in-depth understanding of \"why\" and \"how\" evidence-based interventions are successfully implemented-a key area of implementation science (IS) research. A systematic synthesis of the applications of qualitative methods is critical for understanding how qualitative methods have been used to date and identifying areas of innovation and optimization. This scoping review explores which qualitative data collection and analytic methods are used in IS research, what and how frameworks and theories are leveraged using qualitative methods, and which implementation issues are explored with qualitative implementation research.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a systematic scoping review of articles in MEDLINE and Embase using qualitative methods in IS health research. We systematically extracted information including study design, data collection method(s), analytic method(s), implementation outcomes, and other domains.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded a final dataset of 867 articles from 76 countries. Qualitative study designs were predominantly single elicitation (67.7%) and longitudinal (20.3%). In-depth interviews were the most common data collection method (84.3%), followed by focus group discussions (FGDs) (34.5%), and nearly 25% used both. Sample sizes were, on average, 40 in-depth interviews (range: 1-1,131) and nine FGDs (range: 1-46). The most common analytic approaches were thematic analysis (45.3%) and content analysis (18.5%) with substantial variation in analytic conceptualization. Nearly one-quarter (23.2%) of articles used one or more TMF to conceptualize the study, and less than half (40.9%) of articles used a TMF to guide both data collection and analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We highlight variation in how qualitative methods were used, as well as detailed examples of data collection and analysis descriptions. By reviewing how qualitative methods have been used in well-described and innovative ways, and identifying important gaps, we highlight opportunities for strengthening their use to optimize IS research.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The protocol can be found 10.11124/JBIES-20-00120.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":"6 ","pages":"26334895251367470"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12394868/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Are Qualitative Methods Used in Implementation Science Research? Results From a Systematic Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Ashley Hagaman, Elizabeth C Rhodes, Carlin F Aloe, Rachel Hennein, Mary L Peng, Maryann Deyling, Michael Georgescu, Kate Nyhan, Anna Schwartz, Kristal Zhou, Marina Katague, Emilie Egger, Donna Spiegelman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26334895251367470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Qualitative methods are essential for providing an in-depth understanding of \\\"why\\\" and \\\"how\\\" evidence-based interventions are successfully implemented-a key area of implementation science (IS) research. A systematic synthesis of the applications of qualitative methods is critical for understanding how qualitative methods have been used to date and identifying areas of innovation and optimization. This scoping review explores which qualitative data collection and analytic methods are used in IS research, what and how frameworks and theories are leveraged using qualitative methods, and which implementation issues are explored with qualitative implementation research.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a systematic scoping review of articles in MEDLINE and Embase using qualitative methods in IS health research. We systematically extracted information including study design, data collection method(s), analytic method(s), implementation outcomes, and other domains.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded a final dataset of 867 articles from 76 countries. Qualitative study designs were predominantly single elicitation (67.7%) and longitudinal (20.3%). In-depth interviews were the most common data collection method (84.3%), followed by focus group discussions (FGDs) (34.5%), and nearly 25% used both. Sample sizes were, on average, 40 in-depth interviews (range: 1-1,131) and nine FGDs (range: 1-46). The most common analytic approaches were thematic analysis (45.3%) and content analysis (18.5%) with substantial variation in analytic conceptualization. Nearly one-quarter (23.2%) of articles used one or more TMF to conceptualize the study, and less than half (40.9%) of articles used a TMF to guide both data collection and analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We highlight variation in how qualitative methods were used, as well as detailed examples of data collection and analysis descriptions. By reviewing how qualitative methods have been used in well-described and innovative ways, and identifying important gaps, we highlight opportunities for strengthening their use to optimize IS research.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The protocol can be found 10.11124/JBIES-20-00120.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implementation research and practice\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"26334895251367470\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12394868/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implementation research and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895251367470\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895251367470","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:定性方法对于深入理解基于证据的干预措施成功实施的“原因”和“方式”至关重要,这是实施科学(IS)研究的一个关键领域。系统地综合定性方法的应用对于理解迄今为止如何使用定性方法以及确定创新和优化领域至关重要。这个范围审查探讨了在IS研究中使用了哪些定性数据收集和分析方法,哪些框架和理论是利用定性方法来利用的,以及如何利用定性实施研究来探索哪些实施问题。方法:采用IS健康研究的定性方法,对MEDLINE和Embase中的文章进行系统的范围综述。我们系统地提取了包括研究设计、数据收集方法、分析方法、实施结果和其他领域的信息。结果:我们的搜索产生了来自76个国家的867篇文章的最终数据集。定性研究设计主要是单一启发(67.7%)和纵向(20.3%)。深度访谈是最常见的数据收集方法(84.3%),其次是焦点小组讨论(fgd)(34.5%),近25%的人同时使用这两种方法。样本大小平均为40个深度访谈(范围:1-1,131)和9个fgd(范围:1-46)。最常见的分析方法是主题分析(45.3%)和内容分析(18.5%),分析概念化差异很大。近四分之一(23.2%)的文章使用一个或多个TMF来概念化研究,不到一半(40.9%)的文章使用TMF来指导数据收集和分析。结论:我们强调了如何使用定性方法的差异,以及数据收集和分析描述的详细示例。通过回顾定性方法如何以描述良好和创新的方式使用,并确定重要的差距,我们强调了加强使用定性方法以优化信息系统研究的机会。注册:协议可以找到10.11124/JBIES-20-00120。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

How Are Qualitative Methods Used in Implementation Science Research? Results From a Systematic Scoping Review.

How Are Qualitative Methods Used in Implementation Science Research? Results From a Systematic Scoping Review.

How Are Qualitative Methods Used in Implementation Science Research? Results From a Systematic Scoping Review.

How Are Qualitative Methods Used in Implementation Science Research? Results From a Systematic Scoping Review.

Background: Qualitative methods are essential for providing an in-depth understanding of "why" and "how" evidence-based interventions are successfully implemented-a key area of implementation science (IS) research. A systematic synthesis of the applications of qualitative methods is critical for understanding how qualitative methods have been used to date and identifying areas of innovation and optimization. This scoping review explores which qualitative data collection and analytic methods are used in IS research, what and how frameworks and theories are leveraged using qualitative methods, and which implementation issues are explored with qualitative implementation research.

Method: We conducted a systematic scoping review of articles in MEDLINE and Embase using qualitative methods in IS health research. We systematically extracted information including study design, data collection method(s), analytic method(s), implementation outcomes, and other domains.

Results: Our search yielded a final dataset of 867 articles from 76 countries. Qualitative study designs were predominantly single elicitation (67.7%) and longitudinal (20.3%). In-depth interviews were the most common data collection method (84.3%), followed by focus group discussions (FGDs) (34.5%), and nearly 25% used both. Sample sizes were, on average, 40 in-depth interviews (range: 1-1,131) and nine FGDs (range: 1-46). The most common analytic approaches were thematic analysis (45.3%) and content analysis (18.5%) with substantial variation in analytic conceptualization. Nearly one-quarter (23.2%) of articles used one or more TMF to conceptualize the study, and less than half (40.9%) of articles used a TMF to guide both data collection and analysis.

Conclusions: We highlight variation in how qualitative methods were used, as well as detailed examples of data collection and analysis descriptions. By reviewing how qualitative methods have been used in well-described and innovative ways, and identifying important gaps, we highlight opportunities for strengthening their use to optimize IS research.

Registration: The protocol can be found 10.11124/JBIES-20-00120.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 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