ArticleImplementation science communications2020
Unintended consequences: a qualitative study exploring the impact of collecting implementation process data with phone interviews on implementation activities.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02325531 (SPREAD-NET), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
SPREAD-NET: PRactices Enabling Adapting and Disseminating in the Safety NET
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital focus groups in healthcare interventions: A reflexive methodological analysis of how socio-technical and relational factors co-produce qualitative data.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- What constitutes risk in implementation research? Perspectives from a qualitative key-informant study.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Applying Realist Retroduction to EHR-Based Clinical Decision Support Tool Development.International journal of qualitative methods · 2025Article
- Implementation strategies: lessons learned during an e-learning intervention to improve dietary behaviors and feeding practices in early childhood education and care.BMC nutrition · 2025Article
- Strategies for effective implementation and scale-up of a multi-level co-designed men's health initiative "Sheds for Life" in Irish Men's Sheds.Frontiers in health services · 2022Article
- Reflective writing: a tool to support continuous learning and improved effectiveness in implementation facilitators.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQualitative data are crucial for capturing implementation processes, and thus necessary for understanding implementation trial outcomes. Typical methods for capturing such data include observations, focus groups, and interviews. Yet little consideration has been given to how such methods create interactions between researchers and study participants, which may affect participants' engagement, and thus implementation activities and study outcomes. In the context of a clinical trial, we assessed whether and how ongoing telephone check-ins to collect data about implementation activities impacted the quality of collected data, and participants' engagement in study activities.
methodsResearchers conducted regular phone check-ins with clinic staff serving as implementers in an implementation study. Approximately 1 year into this trial, 19 of these study implementers were queried about the impact of these calls on study engagement and implementation activities. The two researchers who collected implementation process data through phone check-ins with the study implementers were also interviewed about their perceptions of the impact of the check-ins.
resultsStudy implementers' assessment of the check-ins' impact fell into three categories: (1) the check-ins had no effect on implementation activities, (2) the check-ins served as a reminder about study participation (without relating a clear impact on implementation activities), and (3) the check-ins caused changes in implementation activities. The researchers similarly perceived that the phone check-ins served as reminders and encouraged some implementers' engagement in implementation activities; their ongoing nature also created personal connections with study implementers that may have impacted implementation activities. Among some study implementers, anticipation of the check-in calls also improved their ability to recount implementation activities and positively affected quality of the data collected.
conclusionThese results illustrate the potential impact of qualitative data collection on implementation activities during implementation science trials. Mitigating such effects may prove challenging, but acknowledging these consequences-or even embracing them, perhaps by designing data collection methods as implementation strategies-could enhance scientific rigor. This work is presented to stimulate debate about the complexities involved in capturing data on implementation processes using common qualitative data collection methods.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531 . Registered 15 December 2014.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.