ArticleThe journal of primary prevention2019
Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A Mixed-Method Tool for Complex Implementation Questions.
Article in The journal of primary prevention, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health: a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2022Pooled it
- Factors facilitating the implementation of a clinical decision support system in primary care practices: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis.BMC health services research · 2023Trial
- Household structures and exposure networks among people with multidrug-resistant TB in Namibia.IJTLD open · 2026Article
- Qualitative Mediation Analysis: an Important Method for Exploring Mediating Mechanisms in Prevention Science.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2025Article
- Synergistic pathways for health investment and economic development in China: a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- What complex factors influence sleep quality in college students? PLS-SEM vs. fsQCA.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Implementation of e-Mental Health Interventions for Informal Caregivers of Adults With Chronic Diseases: Mixed Methods Systematic Review With a Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Thematic Synthesis.JMIR mental health · 2022Review
- Using qualitative comparative analysis to uncover multiple pathways to program sustainment: implications for community-based youth substance misuse prevention.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Influence of Workload, Personality, and Psychological Flexibility on Occupational Stress Among Medical Staff: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Beyond effectiveness of the Strengthening Families Program (10-14): a scoping RE-AIM-based review.Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS · 2021Article
- Factors Influencing Implementation of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Improvement Program in Community Health Centers: an Applied Use of Configurational Comparative Methods.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Adapting Cure Violence for Southwest Philadelphia: A Pilot Implementation Evaluation of the Penn Community Violence Prevention Program.Implementation research and practiceArticle
- Which aspects of coalition functioning are key at different stages of coalition development? A qualitative comparative analysis.Implementation research and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The translation and scale-up of evidence-based programs require new methods to guide implementation decisions across varying contexts. As programs are translated to real-world settings, variability is introduced. Some program components may have minor roles to play in producing positive outcomes, and some may have major roles, but only if adapted to meet different contextual demands. While some sources of variability are likely to improve program outcomes, we currently lack methods that allow us to determine the critical components or combinations of components that serve as causal pathways to a desired outcome and then to advise practitioners accordingly. In this paper, we introduce a promising tool for this purpose and illustrate its use in a translational research context. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is often used to examine causality in situations that have complex, multiply-determined outcomes. The basic premise of QCA is that different sets of causal conditions, or causal pathways, may lead to a single outcome (the principle of equifinality). We applied QCA to a selection of the highest- and lowest-performing programs from a multi-year two-state dissemination of The Strengthening Families Program for Parents and Adolescents 10-14 to determine which components or combinations of components at the implementation, program delivery, and participant levels produced desired participant outcomes. In particular, we examined which components were necessary (i.e., in the absence of these factors, the outcome didnot occur), and which were sufficient (i.e., in the presence of these factors, the outcome always occurred). Results demonstrated that certain conditions were necessary for program success. In addition, given those necessary conditions, there were two sets of conditions sufficient to produce success, regardless of the presence or absence of any of the others. QCA, not previously used in prevention science research, helps to illuminate causal pathways, leading to concrete, evidence-based implementation decisions that facilitate generalization and scale-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30671752What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.