EUVIMEDEuropean Health Evidence
Uhr Sources10/10 Journal Tree
Easy Demo

European Health Evidence

The European alternative to PubMed

EUVIMED is the European alternative to PubMed: a central, multilingual research platform for medicine, nursing, life sciences and healthcare. It brings together international and European literature sources, study registries, open-access full texts, citations and retraction notices in one search. Unlike pure bibliographic databases, EUVIMED supports the entire research process – from discovery and appraisal with LIVIA and CLARA to traceable evidence synthesis. European in focus, transparent, interoperable and designed for science and healthcare.

EuropeanMultilingualInteroperableTraceable

EUVIMED BETA

EUVIMED is currently in beta

EUVIMED is under continuous development. Features, data coverage and presentation may change or be temporarily incomplete.

Results are beta

Search results, classifications, summaries and AI-assisted assessments may be incomplete, delayed or incorrect.

Check original sources

Do not use EUVIMED results without verification for diagnosis, treatment or other clinical decisions. Always consult the original source and applicable guidelines.

Errors and feedback help us improve EUVIMED: info@euvimed.com

Lokaler Crossref-Datenbestand · journal-article

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

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

Implementation Research and Practice · 2025

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

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.

Bibliografischer Nachweis

Publikationsdaten

Autor:innen
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
Quelle
Implementation Research and Practice
Publikation
2025-01-01
Band / Ausgabe
Nicht angegeben
Seiten
Nicht angegeben
ISSN / ISBN
2633-4895, 2633-4895
Zitationen
5 laut Crossref
Referenzen
0 hinterlegt

Zitieren

Zitierfähiger Nachweis

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 (2025). How Are Qualitative Methods Used in Implementation Science Research? Results From a Systematic Scoping Review. Implementation Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-25-00286
RIS BibTeX CSL-JSON

Kontext

Themen, Förderung und Nutzung

Lizenzhinweise: Lizenz 1 · Lizenz 2