Cited by 127Qualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchHealth Policy Implementation ScienceQualitative Research Methods and Applications

Using qualitative comparative analysis to understand and quantify translation and implementation

Open access
Kane, Heather, Lewis, Megan A, Williams, Pamela A, Kahwati, Leila C·2014·Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Understanding the factors that facilitate implementation of behavioral medicine programs into practice can advance translational science. Often, translation or implementation studies use case study methods with small sample sizes. Methodological approaches that systematize findings from these types of studies are needed to improve rigor and advance the field. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is a method and analytical approach that can advance implementation science. QCA offers an approach for rigorously conducting translational and implementation research limited by a small number of cases. We describe the methodological and analytic approach for using QCA and provide examples of its use in the health and health services literature. QCA brings together qualitative or quantitative data derived from cases to identify necessary and sufficient conditions for an outcome. QCA offers advantages for researchers interested in analyzing complex programs and for practitioners interested in developing programs that achieve successful health outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13142-014-0251-6

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kane, H., Lewis, M. A., Williams, P. A., & Kahwati, L. C.
Affiliations
RTI International (US)
Corresponding author
Kane, Heather
Venue
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Published
2014-01-22
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
201-208
ISSN
  • 1613-9860 (ISSN-L)
  • 1869-6716
OpenAlex
W2065088369
Cited by
124
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
17.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Translational Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Keywords
qualitative comparative analysis, implementation science, translational research, program implementation, necessary and sufficient conditions, health services research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review