Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39719615›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2024

Generalizing from qualitative data: a case example using critical realist thematic analysis and mechanism mapping to evaluate a community health worker-led screening program in India.

Kathryn Broderick, Arthi Vaidyanathan, Matthew Ponticiello, Misha Hooda, Vaishali Kulkarni, Andrea Chalem, Puja Chebrolu, Ashlesha Onawale, Ana Baumann, Jyoti Mathad and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

Kathryn Broderick *Department of Family Medicine, Sydney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Arthi Vaidyanathan *School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Matthew PonticielloSchool of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Misha HoodaCenter for Global Health, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Vaishali KulkarniDeep Griha Society, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Andrea ChalemDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Puja ChebroluCenter for Global Health, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Ashlesha OnawaleDeep Griha Society, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Ana BaumannDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Jyoti MathadCenter for Global Health, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Radhika SundararajanCenter for Global Health, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. ras9199@med.cornell.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8451-2243

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA central goal of implementation science is to generate insights that allow evidence-based practices to be successfully applied across diverse settings. However, challenges often arise in preserving programs' effectiveness outside the context of their intervention development. We propose that qualitative data can inform generalizability via elucidating mechanisms of an intervention. Critical realist thematic analysis provides a framework for applying qualitative data to identify causal relationships. This approach can be used to develop mechanism maps, a tool rooted in policy that has been used in health systems interventions, to explain how and why interventions work. We illustrate use of these approaches through a case example of a community health worker (CHW)-delivered gestational diabetes (GDM) screening intervention in Pune, India. CHWs successfully improved uptake of oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT) among pregnant women, however clinical management of GDM was suboptimal.

methodsQualitative interviews were conducted with 53 purposively sampled participants (pregnant women, CHWs, maternal health clinicians). Interview transcripts were reviewed using a critical realist thematic analysis approach to develop a coding scheme pertinent to our research questions: "What caused high uptake of GDM screening?" and "Why did most women with GDM referred to clinics did not receive evidence-based management?". Mechanism maps were retrospectively generated using short- and long-term outcomes as fenceposts to illustrate causal pathways of the CHW-delivered program and subsequent clinical GDM management.

resultsCritical realist thematic analysis generated mechanism maps showed that CHWs facilitated GDM screening uptake through affective, cognitive and logistic pathways of influence. Lack of evidence-based treatment of GDM at clinics was caused by 1) clinicians lacking time or initiative to provide GDM counseling and 2) low perceived pre-test probability of GDM in this population of women without traditional risk factors. Mechanism mapping identified areas for adaptation to improve the intervention for future iterations.

conclusionsMechanism maps created by repeated engagement following the critical realist thematic analysis method can provide a retrospective framework to understand causal relationships between factors driving intervention successes or failures. This process, in turn, can inform the generalizability of health programs by identifying constituent factors and their interrelationships that are central to implementation.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersDiabetes, GestationalQualitative ResearchAdultFemaleGlucose Tolerance TestHumansImplementation ScienceIndiaMass ScreeningPregnancyProgram EvaluationCritical realismGeneralizingMechanism mappingQualitative data

Identifiers

PMID39719615
PMCPMC11667965

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.