Hagaman Ashley, Rhodes Elizabeth C, Aloe Carlin F, Hennein Rachel, Peng Mary L, Deyling Maryann, Georgescu Michael, Nyhan Kate, Schwartz Anna, Zhou Kristal, Katague Marina, Egger Emilie, Spiegelman Donna
Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Center for Methods in Implementation and Prevention Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Implement Res Pract. 2025 Aug 28;6:26334895251367470. doi: 10.1177/26334895251367470. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The protocol can be found 10.11124/JBIES-20-00120.
定性方法对于深入理解基于证据的干预措施“为何”以及“如何”成功实施至关重要，这是实施科学（IS）研究的一个关键领域。对定性方法应用进行系统综合对于理解定性方法迄今的使用方式以及识别创新和优化领域至关重要。本范围综述探讨了在IS研究中使用了哪些定性数据收集和分析方法，使用定性方法利用了哪些框架和理论以及如何利用，以及通过定性实施研究探讨了哪些实施问题。
我们对MEDLINE和Embase中使用定性方法进行IS健康研究的文章进行了系统范围综述。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。
我们的检索产生了来自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次启发（67.7%）和纵向研究（20.3%）。深入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%的研究同时使用了这两种方法。样本量平均为40次深入访谈（范围：1 - 1131）和9次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%），分析概念化存在很大差异。近四分之一（23.2%）的文章使用一种或多种理论模型框架（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。
我们强调了定性方法使用方式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详细描述和创新的方式被使用，并识别重要差距，我们突出了加强其使用以优化IS研究的机会。
该方案可在10.11124/JBIES - 20 - 00120找到。
