Search

Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) was originally developed as a tool for cross-national comparisons in macrosociology, but its use in evaluation and evidence synthesis of complex interventions is rapidly developing. QCA is theory-driven and relies on Boolean logic to identify pathways to an outcome (eg, is the intervention effective or not?). We use the example of two linked systematic reviews on weight management programs (WMPs) for adults-one focusing on user views (a "views synthesis") and one focusing on the effectiveness of WMPs incorporating dietary and physical activity-to demonstrate how a synthesis of user views can supply a working theory to structure a QCA. We discuss how a views synthesis is especially apt to supply this working theory because user views can (a) represent a "middle-range theory" of the intervention; (b) bring a participatory, democratic perspective; and (c) provide an idiographic understanding of how the intervention works that external taxonomies may not be able to furnish. We then discuss the practical role that the views synthesis played in our QCA examining pathways to effectiveness: (a) by suggesting specific intervention features and sharpening the focus on the most salient features to be examined, (b) by supporting interpretation of findings, and (c) by bounding data analysis to prevent data dredging., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background Multifactorial fall prevention trials providing interventions based on individual risk factors have variable success in aged care facilities. To determine configurations of trial features that reduce falls, intervention component analysis (ICA) and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) were undertaken. Methods Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from a Cochrane Collaboration review (Cameron, 2018) with meta-analysis data, plus trials identified in a systematic search update to December 2021 were included. Meta-analyses were updated. A theory developed through ICA of English publications of trialist's perspectives was assessed through QCA and a subgroup meta-analysis. Results Pooled effectiveness of multifactorial interventions indicated a falls rate ratio of 0.85 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.65–1.10; I 2 = 85%; 11 trials). All tested interventions targeted both environmental and personal risk factors by including assessment of environmental hazards, a medical or medication review and exercise intervention. ICA emphasised the importance of co-design involving facility staff and managers and tailored intervention delivery to resident's intrinsic factors for successful outcomes. QCA of facility engagement plus tailored delivery was consistent with greater reduction in falls, supported by high consistency (0.91) and coverage (0.85). An associated subgroup meta-analysis demonstrated strong falls reduction without heterogeneity (rate ratio 0.61, 95%CI 0.54–0.69, I 2 = 0%; 7 trials). Conclusion Multifactorial falls prevention interventions should engage aged care staff and managers to implement strategies which include tailored intervention delivery according to each resident's intrinsic factors. Such approaches are consistently associated with a successful reduction in falls, as demonstrated by QCA and subgroup meta-analyses. Co-design approaches may also enhance intervention success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most countries recommend that healthcare workers (HCWs) are vaccinated seasonally against influenza in order to protect themselves and patients. However, in many cases coverage remains low. A range of strategies have been implemented to increase uptake. Qualitative evidence can help in understanding the context of interventions, including why interventions may fail to achieve the desired effect. This study aimed to synthesise evidence on HCWs' perceptions and experiences of vaccination for seasonal influenza.Methods: Systematic review of qualitative evidence. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and included English-language studies which reported substantive qualitative data on the vaccination of HCWs for seasonal influenza. Findings were synthesised thematically.Results: Twenty-five studies were included in the review. HCWs may be motivated to accept vaccination to protect themselves and their patients against infection. However, a range of beliefs may act as barriers to vaccine uptake, including concerns about side-effects, scepticism about vaccine effectiveness, and the belief that influenza is not a serious illness. HCWs value their autonomy and professional responsibility in making decisions about vaccination. The implementation of interventions to promote vaccination uptake may face barriers both from HCWs' personal beliefs and from the relationships between management and employees within the targeted organisations.Conclusions: HCWs' vaccination behaviour needs to be understood in the context of HCWs' relationships with each other, with management and with patients. Interventions to promote vaccination should take into account both the individual beliefs of targeted HCWs and the organisational context within which they are implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents an approach to combining qualitative and quantitative research in a systematic review. Description of how this approach was used in a systematic review of interventions to promote healthy eating among children; Focus of the review, which was fruit and vegetable intake for children 4-10 years old; Analysis of the study and its results; Uncertainty exists about how to include qualitative research within systematic reviews; Integration of the two types of studies can identify ways to improve interventions and their implementation.

Cardiovascular risk prediction models are widely used to help individuals understand risk and make decisions. Systematic review of qualitative evidence. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We included English-language qualitative studies on the communication of cardiovascular risk. We assessed study quality using Hawker et al.'s tool and synthesised data thematically. Thirty-seven studies were included. Many patients think that risk scores are of limited practical value. Other sources of information feed into informal estimates of risk, which may lead patients to reject the results of clinical risk assessment when the two conflict. Clinicians identify a number of barriers to risk communication, including patients' limited understanding of risk and excessive anxiety. They use a range of strategies for adapting risk communication. Both clinicians and individuals express specific preferences for risk communication formats. Ways of communicating risk that provide some comparison or reference point seem more promising. The broader context of communication around risk may be more important than the risk scoring instrument. Risk communication interventions, in practice, may be more about appeals to emotion than a rationalistic model of decision-making. • Patients often think that cardiovascular risk scores are irrelevant. • Patients use a range of information to understand risk informally. • Clinicians adapt risk communication to individual patients. • The lack of a comparison point is a barrier to patients' understanding of risk scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]