Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36104801›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2022

Development of a qualitative data analysis codebook informed by the i-PARIHS framework.

Mona J Ritchie, Karen L Drummond, Brandy N Smith, Jennifer L Sullivan, Sara J Landes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Use of the i-PARIHS framework in nutrition and dietetics research and practice: A citation analysis of the literature and case studies.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Mona J RitchieDepartment of Veterans Affairs, Behavioral Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), 2200 Ft Roots Dr, North Little Rock, AR, 72114, USA. mona.ritchie@va.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9522-8275
Karen L DrummondDepartment of Veterans Affairs, Behavioral Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), 2200 Ft Roots Dr, North Little Rock, AR, 72114, USA.
Brandy N SmithDepartment of Veterans Affairs, Behavioral Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), 2200 Ft Roots Dr, North Little Rock, AR, 72114, USA.
Jennifer L SullivanCenter for Innovation in Long Term Services and Supports, VA Providence Healthcare System, 385 Niagara St, Providence, RI, 02907, USA.
Sara J LandesDepartment of Veterans Affairs, Behavioral Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), 2200 Ft Roots Dr, North Little Rock, AR, 72114, USA.

Funding

HSRD VA QUE 15-289Quality Enhancement Research Initiative QUE 20-026
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework and its predecessor, PARIHS, have been widely utilized in implementation studies. Although i-PARIHS developers have focused on creating tools to guide facilitators in its application in practice, tools are also needed for evaluation and research. Codebooks with clear and meaningful code labels and definitions are an important component of qualitative data analysis and have been developed for other widely used frameworks. There is no such codebook for i-PARIHS. Additionally, sub-constructs for the Innovation, Recipients, and Context constructs lack definitions, and there is no sub-classification of facilitation activities for the Facilitation construct. The lack of a standardized codebook hinders our ability to synthesize research findings across studies, explore and test the range of activities that are utilized in facilitation efforts, and potentially validate and further refine i-PARIHS. This paper describes a rigorous process of developing a detailed qualitative codebook informed by the i-PARIHS framework.

methodsA workgroup of qualitative researchers conducted a rigorous four-phase process to develop a codebook informed by i-PARIHS. In phase 1, workgroup members reviewed and discussed literature, consulted an organizational scientist, and drafted and refined subcodes and definitions for i-PARIHS constructs. In phase 2, they obtained feedback from an expert panel and further refined subcodes and definitions. In phase 3, they obtained feedback from i-PARIHS developers/experts and incorporated it into the codebook. Finally, two studies piloted the application of the codebook which informed the final version.

resultsThe resulting i-PARIHS-informed codebook includes definitions for the four main constructs of the framework: Innovation, Recipients, Context, and Facilitation; subcodes and definitions for characteristics of each of these constructs; and instructions for the suggested application of individual codes and use of the codebook generally.

conclusionsThe standardized codes and definitions in the codebook can facilitate data exploration, pattern identification, and insight development informed by the i-PARIHS framework. Qualitative analysts can also use them to explore interactions between i-PARIHS constructs, maximize the potential for comparing findings across studies, and support the refinement of the i-PARIHS framework using empirical findings from multiple studies.

Indexed as

Implementation scienceIntegrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services frameworki-PARIHSQualitative methods

Identifiers

PMID36104801
PMCPMC9476709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.