Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30671752›Full record

ArticleThe journal of primary prevention2019

Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A Mixed-Method Tool for Complex Implementation Questions.

Laura G Hill, Brittany Rhoades Cooper, Louise A Parker

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Qualitative Mediation Analysis: an Important Method for Exploring Mediating Mechanisms in Prevention Science.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors.

Laura G HillWashington State University, PO Box 4852, Pullman, WA, 99164, USA. laurahill@wsu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0988-4637
Brittany Rhoades CooperWashington State University, PO Box 4852, Pullman, WA, 99164, USA.
Louise A ParkerWashington State University, PO Box 4852, Pullman, WA, 99164, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Evidence-Based PracticeImplementation ScienceParent-Child RelationsQualitative ResearchAdolescentFemaleHumansMaleResearch DesignUnited StatesImplementation and disseminationPreventionScaling upStrengthening Families Program 10–14Translation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.