Using qualitative comparative analysis as a mixed methods synthesis in systematic mixed studies reviews: Guidance and a worked example.

Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is a hybrid method designed to bridge the gap between qualitative and quantitative research in a case-sensitive approach that considers each case holistically as a complex configuration of conditions and outcomes. QCA allows for multiple conjunctural causation, implying that it is often a combination of conditions that produces an outcome, that multiple pathways may lead to the same outcome, and that in different contexts, the same condition may have a different impact on the outcome. This approach to complexity allows QCA to provide a practical understanding for complex, real-world situations, and the context of implementing interventions. There are guides for conducting QCA in primary research and quantitative systematic reviews yet, to our knowledge, no guidance for conducting QCA in systematic mixed studies reviews (SMSRs). Thus, the specific objectives of this paper are to (1) describe a step-by-step approach for novice researchers for using QCA to integrate qualitative and quantitative evidence, including guidance on how to use software; (2) highlight specific challenges; (3) propose potential solutions from a worked example; and (4) provide recommendations for reporting.

Characteristics of Case Management in Primary Care Associated With Positive Outcomes for Frequent Users of Health Care: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Case management (CM) interventions are effective for frequent users of health care services, but little is known about which intervention characteristics lead to positive outcomes. We sought to identify characteristics of CM that yield positive outcomes among frequent users with chronic disease in primary care. METHODS: For this systematic review of both quantitative and qualitative studies, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO (1996 to September 2017) and included articles meeting the following criteria: (1)population: adult frequent users with chronic disease, (2)intervention: CM in a primary care setting with a postintervention evaluation, and (3)primary outcomes: integration of services, health care system use, cost, and patient outcome measures. Independent reviewers screened abstracts, read full texts, appraised methodologic quality (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool), and extracted data from the included studies. Sufficient and necessary CM intervention characteristics were identified using configurational comparative methods. RESULTS: Of the 10,687 records retrieved, 20 studies were included; 17 quantitative, 2 qualitative, and 1 mixed methods study. Analyses revealed that it is necessary to identify patients most likely to benefit from a CM intervention for CM to produce positive outcomes. High-intensity intervention or the presence of a multidisciplinary/interorganizational care plan was also associated with positive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers and clinicians should focus on their case-finding processes because this is the essential characteristic of CM effectiveness. In addition, value should be placed on high-intensity CM interventions and developing care plans with multiple types of care providers to help improve patient outcomes.

Health outcomes of online consumer health information: A systematic mixed studies review with framework synthesis.

The Internet has become the first source of consumer health information. Most theoretical and empirical studies are centered on information needs and seeking, rather than on information outcomes. This review's purpose is to explore and explain health outcomes of Online Consumer Health Information (OCHI) in primary care. A participatory systematic mixed studies review with a framework synthesis was undertaken. Starting from an initial conceptual framework, our specific objectives were to (a) identify types of OCHI outcomes in primary care, (b) identify factors associated with these outcomes, and (c) integrate these factors and outcomes into a comprehensive revised framework combining an information theory and a psychosocial theory of behavior. The results of 65 included studies were synthesized using a qualitative thematic data analysis. The themes derived from the literature underwent a harmonization process that produced a comprehensive typology of OCHI outcomes. The revised conceptual framework specifies four individual and one organizational level of OCHI outcomes, while including factors such as consumers' information needs and four interdependent contextual factors. It contributes to theoretical knowledge about OCHI health outcomes, and informs future research, information assessment methods, and tools to help consumers find and use health information.

Decisional needs assessment of patients with complex care needs in primary care: a participatory systematic mixed studies review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with complex care needs (PCCNs) often suffer from combinations of multiple chronic conditions, mental health problems, drug interactions and social vulnerability, which can lead to healthcare services overuse, underuse or misuse. Typically, PCCNs face interactional issues and unmet decisional needs regarding possible options in a cascade of interrelated decisions involving different stakeholders (themselves, their families, their caregivers, their healthcare practitioners). Gaps in knowledge, values clarification and social support in situations where options need to be deliberated hamper effective decision support interventions. This review aims to (1) assess decisional needs of PCCNs from the perspective of stakeholders, (2) build a taxonomy of these decisional needs and (3) prioritise decisional needs with knowledge users (clinicians, patients and managers). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will be based on the interprofessional shared decision making (IP-SDM) model and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Applying a participatory research approach, we will identify potentially relevant studies through a comprehensive literature search; select relevant ones using eligibility criteria inspired from our previous scoping review on PCCNs; appraise quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; conduct a three-step synthesis (sequential exploratory mixed methods design) to build taxonomy of key decisional needs; and integrate these results with those of a parallel PCCNs' qualitative decisional need assessment (semistructured interviews and focus group with stakeholders). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review, together with the qualitative study (approved by the Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Service Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean ethical committee), will produce a working taxonomy of key decisional needs (ontological contribution), to inform the subsequent user-centred design of a support tool for addressing PCCNs' decisional needs (practical contribution). We will adapt the IP-SDM model, normally dealing with a single decision, for PCCNs who experience cascade of decisions involving different stakeholders (theoretical contribution). Knowledge users will facilitate dissemination of the results in the Canadian primary care network. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015020558.

Attitudes towards reforming primary care in Belgium: social network analysis in a pluralist context.

OBJECTIVES: Health care policies are influenced by many groups which in turn influence each other. Our aim was to describe a network of nominated influential stakeholders and analyze how it affects attitudes to reforming primary care. METHODS: Face-to-face interviews were carried out in Belgium with 102 influential people. Each respondent was asked to score solutions for improving the role of general practice in the health care system and to nominate up to six other influential stakeholders. Social network and multivariate analyses were used to describe the nomination network and its effect on attitudes to reform. RESULTS: The network was highly centralized and homophilous (tendency to bond with people who are similar) for language groups. Despite Belgium having a strong pluralist tradition of decision making, policy makers were central to the network (average indegree = 10.8) compared to professional representatives (6.9). Respondents supported an enhanced role for general practitioners but did not support radically new policies. CONCLUSION: Social network analysis contributes to understanding why health care reforms may languish in pluralistic, decentralized health care systems. The central position of a stakeholder in a network is related to perceived influence but does not favour a radical policy orientation. In addition, language-group homophily in the 'perceived influence network' leads to a weak coalition that only favours small-step reform.