Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31735374›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry research2020

Reprint of: Qualitative methods in implementation research: An introduction.

Alison B Hamilton, Erin P Finley

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed
–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

62 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Provider and Parent Perspectives on Pediatric Screening for Research on Early Life Adversity.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alison B HamiltonCenter for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation & Policy, VA Greater Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: Alison.hamilton@va.gov.
Erin P FinleySouth Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA; UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Qualitative methods are a valuable tool in implementation research because they help to answer complex questions such as how and why efforts to implement best practices may succeed or fail, and how patients and providers experience and make decisions in care. This article orients the novice implementation scientist to fundamentals of qualitative methods and their application in implementation research, describing: 1) implementation-related questions that can be addressed by qualitative methods; 2) qualitative methods commonly used in implementation research; 3) basic sampling and data collection procedures; and 4) recommended practices for data analysis and ensuring rigor. To illustrate qualitative methods decision-making, a case example is provided of a study examining implementation of a primary care-based collaborative care management model for women Veterans with anxiety, depression, and PTSD.

Indexed as

EthnographyEvaluationEvidence-based practicesFocus groupsKnowledge translationSemi-structured interviewsTranslational research

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.