Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33292848›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2020

Unintended consequences: a qualitative study exploring the impact of collecting implementation process data with phone interviews on implementation activities.

Inga Gruß, Arwen Bunce, James Davis, Rachel Gold

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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.

NCT02325531 nacompletednot on this map

SPREAD-NET: PRactices Enabling Adapting and Disseminating in the Safety NET

TypeinterventionalSponsorKaiser PermanenteRan2014 to 2021Enrolled166ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus, Cardiovascular DiseaseArmsLow support, Medium support, High support, Comparison
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Inga GrußKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N. Interstate, Portland, OR, 97227, USA. inga.gruss@kpchr.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6167-0548
Arwen BunceOCHIN, Inc., 1881 SW Naito Pkwy, Portland, OR, 97201, USA.
James DavisKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N. Interstate, Portland, OR, 97227, USA.
Rachel GoldKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N. Interstate, Portland, OR, 97227, USA.

Funding

SPREAD-NET: PRactices Enabling Adapting and Disseminating in the safety NETR01HL120894 · NHLBI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GOLD, RACHEL · 2014 to 2018
$3.6M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL120894NHLBI NIH HHS R01HL120894
6 · The paper itself

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

Capturing implementation processesData collection methodsImplementation studiesMeasurement reactivityQualitative researchResearcher effectsStudy design

Identifiers

PMID33292848
PMCPMC7643400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.