Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42080030›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of qualitative methods

Harmonizing Qualitative Data Across Multiple Health Systems to Identify Quality Improvement Interventions: A Methodological Framework Using PROSPR II Cervical Research Center Data as Exemplar.

Robin T Higashi, Gina Kruse, Julie Richards, Anubha Sood, Patricia M Chen, Lisa Quirk, Justin Kramer, Jasmin A Tiro, Leah Tuzzio, Jennifer S Haas and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of qualitative methods. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Process Mapping to Compare and Improve Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results in Two US Healthcare Systems within the PROSPR Consortium.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    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

12 authors.

Robin T HigashiUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5232-6852
Gina KruseMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Julie RichardsKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Anubha SoodUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Patricia M ChenUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Lisa QuirkUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Justin KramerUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Jasmin A TiroUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Leah TuzzioKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jennifer S HaasMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Marlaine Figueroa GrayKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Simon C LeeUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6345-1237

Funding

PROSPR METRICS CISNET Collaboration Investigating Impact of Structural Racism/Discrimination on Cervical Screening Moonshot SupplementUM1CA221940 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI CHUBAK, JESSICA, HAAS, JENNIFER S · 2018 to 2023
$15.9M
NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA221940
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Heterogeneity in healthcare systems' organizational structures, policies and decisions influences practice implementation and care delivery. While quantitative data harmonization has been used to compare outcomes, few have conducted cross-site qualitative inquiry of healthcare delivery; thus, little is known about how to harmonize qualitative data across multiple settings. Objective: We illustrate a methodological approach for a theory-driven qualitative data harmonization process for the PROSPR II Cervical Research Center, a large multi-site, mixedmethods study evaluating cervical cancer screening across three diverse healthcare settings. Methods: We compared three geographically, socio-demographically, and structurally diverse healthcare systems using a multi-modal qualitative data collection strategy. We grounded our sampling strategy in a cervical cancer screening process model, then tailored it for system-specific differences (e.g., clinic staffing structure and individual roles). Data collection tools included domains corresponding to shared research objectives (e.g., abnormal follow-up) while accommodating local context. Analysis drew on operational domains from the screening process model and constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Normalization Process Theory. Results: Exemplars demonstrate how data harmonization revealed insights suggesting opportunities to improve clinical processes across healthcare systems. Discussion: This analysis advances the application of qualitative methods in implementation science, where assessing context is key to responding to organizational challenges and shaping implementation strategies across multiple health systems. We demonstrate how systematically collecting, analyzing and harmonizing qualitative data elucidates the impact of process factors and accelerates efforts to identify opportunities for quality improvement interventions.

Indexed as

cancer preventioncancer screeninggrounded theoryimplementation sciencemixed methodsqualitative evaluationqualitative research designstructured observation

Identifiers

PMID42080030
PMCPMC13132540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.