Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, University Drive, 22-B17, Canberra, Australia; Centre for Population Health, University of South Australia, 8th Floor Office 310, SAHMRI Building (North Terrace), Adelaide, Australia.
School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, UK.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 May;97:59-69. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.028. Epub 2017 Dec 7.
This article provides reviewers with guidance on methods for identifying and processing evidence to understand intervention implementation.
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).
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.
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.
本文为评审员提供了有关识别和处理证据以了解干预措施实施情况的方法指南。
将策略、工具和方法应用于系统评价过程,以说明如何使用定量、定性和其他证据来源(即描述性文本和非经验证据)来解决过程和实施问题。
评审员可以采取措施来应对评估实施所使用的概念、措施和方法中存在的异质性和不确定性程度。可以在进行 Cochrane 定量评价之前开展活动,以制定计划理论和逻辑模型,将实施情况置于因果链中。提供了四种搜索策略来检索过程和实施证据。就如何处理过程评估或实施证据的严谨性或偏倚风险提出了建议。还为从原始研究中定位和提取数据提供了策略。提出了基本逻辑,以帮助评审员对实施失败和理论失败做出初步的综述判断。
尽管策略、工具和方法可以帮助评审员使用定量、定性和其他形式的证据来解决过程和实施问题,但很少有示例综述存在。需要进一步开展方法学开发和对所提出方法的试用。