Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis exploring clients’ perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication via mobile devices for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health. As part of the process we had to integrate the results from our synthesis with the related intervention reviews. We used a matrix analysis to see whether implementation barriers identified in our synthesis had been addressed in the trials included in the related Cochrane Intervention (effectiveness) reviews.
Objective: To present how we conducted our matrix analysis.
Method: To create the matrix we did the following: (1) we selected the synthesis findings that we had assessed as having high or moderate confidence and that presented potential barriers to the implementation of targeted client communication programmes; (2) we created 10 questions reflecting these barriers, and created a table; (3) we assessed whether the trials included in the two related intervention reviews reported any attempt to address these implementation barriers.
To perform this assessment, we examined the publications included in the intervention reviews. We also performed a search for additional publications that could be related to the trials. We did this by (1) examining the reference lists of the main trial publication; and (2) searching for each trial in PubMed, and doing an advanced search for 'Similar articles'. This search used the trial’s first author to identify possible related studies that had this author as a co-author, and selected any that appeared to be related to the trial.
Findings: Our matrix (table 1) suggests that important implementation barriers identified through the qualitative research are ignored in many trials. This may be due to poor reporting by trial authors. We were initially going to base our matrix analysis only on the publications included in the intervention reviews. However, we realized that more information could be contained in protocols, process evaluations and/or related qualitative studies. This process was time-consuming and ended in a large matrix with 125 publications in 68 trials. However, by conducting this additional search we felt more confident in the results.
Conclusion: The matrix allowed us to identify potentially important problems in the designs of the interventions assessed in trials. The use of this approach can help explore reasons for intervention effectiveness. By searching beyond the primary studies included in the related intervention reviews we feel that the analysis was more complete. Integration of qualitative review findings with effectiveness reviews is time intensive and requires good planning and coordination of both review processes.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: This abstract discusses a methodology that aims to include rich data in qualitative reviews which can provide a more detailed presentation of health consumers’ thoughts, opinions and experiences allowing authors to better interpret the meaning and context of findings presented in the primary studies.
Objective: To present how we conducted our matrix analysis.
Method: To create the matrix we did the following: (1) we selected the synthesis findings that we had assessed as having high or moderate confidence and that presented potential barriers to the implementation of targeted client communication programmes; (2) we created 10 questions reflecting these barriers, and created a table; (3) we assessed whether the trials included in the two related intervention reviews reported any attempt to address these implementation barriers.
To perform this assessment, we examined the publications included in the intervention reviews. We also performed a search for additional publications that could be related to the trials. We did this by (1) examining the reference lists of the main trial publication; and (2) searching for each trial in PubMed, and doing an advanced search for 'Similar articles'. This search used the trial’s first author to identify possible related studies that had this author as a co-author, and selected any that appeared to be related to the trial.
Findings: Our matrix (table 1) suggests that important implementation barriers identified through the qualitative research are ignored in many trials. This may be due to poor reporting by trial authors. We were initially going to base our matrix analysis only on the publications included in the intervention reviews. However, we realized that more information could be contained in protocols, process evaluations and/or related qualitative studies. This process was time-consuming and ended in a large matrix with 125 publications in 68 trials. However, by conducting this additional search we felt more confident in the results.
Conclusion: The matrix allowed us to identify potentially important problems in the designs of the interventions assessed in trials. The use of this approach can help explore reasons for intervention effectiveness. By searching beyond the primary studies included in the related intervention reviews we feel that the analysis was more complete. Integration of qualitative review findings with effectiveness reviews is time intensive and requires good planning and coordination of both review processes.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: This abstract discusses a methodology that aims to include rich data in qualitative reviews which can provide a more detailed presentation of health consumers’ thoughts, opinions and experiences allowing authors to better interpret the meaning and context of findings presented in the primary studies.