Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27209206›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2016

Using qualitative comparative analysis in a systematic review of a complex intervention.

Leila Kahwati, Sara Jacobs, Heather Kane, Megan Lewis, Meera Viswanathan, Carol E Golin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Leila KahwatiRTI International, 3040 E. Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA. lkahwati@rti.org.
Sara JacobsRTI International, 3040 E. Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Heather KaneRTI International, 3040 E. Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Megan LewisRTI International, 3040 E. Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Meera ViswanathanRTI International, 3040 E. Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Carol E GolinDepartments of Medicine and Health Behavior, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

Virology, Immunology, and Microbiology CoreP30AI050410 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAVID M. MARGOLIS · 2001 to 2026
$76.9M
Feasibility of Using Qualitative Analysis for Systematic Reviews of Complex InterR03HS022563 · AHRQ · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI KAHWATI, LEILA CATHERINE · 2013 to 2014
$99k
AHRQ HHS 1R03HS022563-01AHRQ HHS R03 HS022563NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI050410
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews evaluating complex interventions often encounter substantial clinical heterogeneity in intervention components and implementation features making synthesis challenging. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is a non-probabilistic method that uses mathematical set theory to study complex phenomena; it has been proposed as a potential method to complement traditional evidence synthesis in reviews of complex interventions to identify key intervention components or implementation features that might explain effectiveness or ineffectiveness. The objective of this study was to describe our approach in detail and examine the suitability of using QCA within the context of a systematic review.

methodsWe used data from a completed systematic review of behavioral interventions to improve medication adherence to conduct two substantive analyses using QCA. The first analysis sought to identify combinations of nine behavior change techniques/components (BCTs) found among effective interventions, and the second analysis sought to identify combinations of five implementation features (e.g., agent, target, mode, time span, exposure) found among effective interventions. For each substantive analysis, we reframed the review's research questions to be designed for use with QCA, calibrated sets (i.e., transformed raw data into data used in analysis), and identified the necessary and/or sufficient combinations of BCTs and implementation features found in effective interventions.

resultsOur application of QCA for each substantive analysis is described in detail. We extended the original review findings by identifying seven combinations of BCTs and four combinations of implementation features that were sufficient for improving adherence. We found reasonable alignment between several systematic review steps and processes used in QCA except that typical approaches to study abstraction for some intervention components and features did not support a robust calibration for QCA.

conclusionsQCA was suitable for use within a systematic review of medication adherence interventions and offered insights beyond the single dimension stratifications used in the original completed review. Future prospective use of QCA during a review is needed to determine the optimal way to efficiently integrate QCA into existing approaches to evidence synthesis of complex interventions.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyMedication AdherenceQualitative ResearchSystematic Reviews as TopicComparative Effectiveness ResearchHumansAdherenceConfigurational analysesQualitative comparative analysisSystematic review methods

Identifiers

PMID27209206
PMCPMC4875617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.