Qualitative studies are often found to be accompanied by quotations from interviews or similar data sources. As with any methodological tradition, it is essential to critically explore the general principle of including quotations in scientific papers: what is the purpose and justification for including quotations? Are there standards and, in that case, what are they and what are their scientific positioning? This paper presents an overview of the somewhat diverse guidance found in the literature in reference to the representation of quotations. Yet, both students and scholars use a variety of approaches to quote from their data, ranging from presenting numerous, extensive, and/or comprehensive quotations throughout the results section to the reporting of a few particular quotations to illustrate certain aspects of the findings only. While their function may be described, scientific reasoning for using quotations is scarce. Along with an overview of the scientific background and options for including quotations in qualitative studies, we discuss the consequences of the different epistemological and methodological aspects found in the literature. In conclusion, we argue that there are incentives for promoting a more deliberate employment of references from data; deriving from the human sciences tradition, a corresponding epistemological stance would suggest that quotations preferably apply for illustrating the analysis process and/or findings, while the idea that quotations can be employed to validate findings has limited support. Further critical examination of the application of and justification for including quotations in the reporting of qualitative studies is needed among researchers, journal editors and reviewers.

Background: The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework was developed two decades ago and conceptualizes successful implementation (SI) as a function (f) of the evidence (E) nature and type, context (C) quality, and the facilitation (F), [SI = f (E,C,F)]. Despite a growing number of citations of theoretical frameworks including PARIHS, details of how theoretical frameworks are used remains largely unknown. This review aimed to enhance the understanding of the breadth and depth of the use of the PARIHS framework.Methods: This citation analysis commenced from four core articles representing the key stages of the framework’s development. The citation search was performed in Web of Science and Scopus. After exclusion, we undertook an initial assessment aimed to identify articles using PARIHS and not only referencing any of the core articles. To assess this, all articles were read in full. Further data extraction included capturing information about where (country/countries and setting/s) PARIHS had been used, as well as categorizing how the framework was applied. Also, strengths and weaknesses, as well as efforts to validate the framework, were explored in detail.Results: The citation search yielded 1613 articles. After applying exclusion criteria, 1475 articles were read in full, and the initial assessment yielded a total of 367 articles reported to have used the PARIHS framework. These articles were included for data extraction. The framework had been used in a variety of settings and in both high-, middle-, and low-income countries. With regard to types of use, 32% used PARIHS in planning and delivering an intervention, 50% in data analysis, 55% in the evaluation of study findings, and/or 37% in any other way. Further analysis showed that its actual application was frequently partial and generally not well elaborated.Conclusions: In line with previous citation analysis of the use of theoretical frameworks in implementation science, we also found a rather superficial description of the use of PARIHS. Thus, we propose the development and adoption of reporting guidelines on how framework(s) are used in implementation studies, with the expectation that this will enhance the maturity of implementation science.

Facilitation is a promising implementation intervention, which requires theory-informed evaluation. This paper presents an exemplar of a multi-country realist process evaluation that was embedded in the first international randomised controlled trial evaluating two types of facilitation for implementing urinary continence care recommendations. We aimed to uncover what worked (and did not work), for whom, how, why and in what circumstances during the process of implementing the facilitation interventions in practice. This realist process evaluation included theory formulation, theory testing and refining. Data were collected in 24 care home sites across four European countries. Data were collected over four time points using multiple qualitative methods: observation (372 h), interviews with staff (n = 357), residents (n = 152), next of kin (n = 109) and other stakeholders (n = 128), supplemented by facilitator activity logs. A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process focused on realist theory refinement and testing. The content and approach of the two facilitation programmes prompted variable opportunities to align and realign support with the needs and expectations of facilitators and homes. This influenced their level of confidence in fulfilling the facilitator role and ability to deliver the intervention as planned. The success of intervention implementation was largely dependent on whether sites prioritised their involvement in both the study and the facilitation programme. In contexts where the study was prioritised (including release of resources) and where managers and staff support was sustained, this prompted collective engagement (as an attitude and action). Internal facilitators’ (IF) personal characteristics and abilities, including personal and formal authority, in combination with a supportive environment prompted by managers triggered the potential for learning over time. Learning over time resulted in a sense of confidence and personal growth, and enactment of the facilitation role, which resulted in practice changes. The scale and multi-country nature of this study provided a novel context to conduct one of the few trial embedded realist-informed process evaluations. In addition to providing an explanatory account of implementation processes, a conceptual platform for future facilitation research is presented. Finally, a realist-informed process evaluation framework is outlined, which could inform future research of this nature. Current controlled trials ISRCTN11598502 .

There is increasing awareness that regardless of the proven value of clinical interventions, the use of effective strategies to implement such interventions into clinical practice is necessary to ensure that patients receive the benefits. However, there is often confusion between what is the clinical intervention and what is the implementation intervention. This may be caused by a lack of conceptual clarity between ‘intervention’ and ‘implementation’, yet at other times by ambiguity in application. We suggest that both the scientific and the clinical communities would benefit from greater clarity; therefore, in this paper, we address the concepts of intervention and implementation, primarily as in clinical interventions and implementation interventions, and explore the grey area in between. To begin, we consider the similarities, differences and potential greyness between clinical interventions and implementation interventions through an overview of concepts. This is illustrated with reference to two examples of clinical interventions and implementation intervention studies, including the potential ambiguity in between. We then discuss strategies to explore the hybridity of clinical-implementation intervention studies, including the role of theories, frameworks, models, and reporting guidelines that can be applied to help clarify the clinical and implementation intervention, respectively. Semantics provide opportunities for improved precision in depicting what is ‘intervention’ and what is ‘implementation’ in health care research. Further, attention to study design, the use of theory, and adoption of reporting guidelines can assist in distinguishing between the clinical intervention and the implementation intervention. However, certain aspects may remain unclear in analyses of hybrid studies of clinical and implementation interventions. Recognizing this potential greyness can inform further discourse.

Health care practice needs to be underpinned by high quality research evidence, so that the best possible care can be delivered. However, evidence from research is not always utilised in practice. This study used the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework as its theoretical underpinning to test whether two different approaches to facilitating implementation could affect the use of research evidence in practice. A pragmatic clustered randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluation was used. The study took place in four European countries across 24 long-term nursing care sites, for people aged 60 years or more with documented urinary incontinence. In each country, sites were randomly allocated to standard dissemination, or one of two different types of facilitation. The primary outcome was the documented percentage compliance with the continence recommendations, assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the intervention. Data were analysed using STATA15, multi-level mixed-effects linear regression models were fitted to scores for compliance with the continence recommendations, adjusting for clustering. Quantitative data were obtained from reviews of 2313 records. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome (documented compliance with continence recommendations) between study arms and all study arms improved over time. This was the first cross European randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation that sought to test different methods of facilitation. There were no statistically significant differences in compliance with continence recommendations between the groups. It was not possible to identify whether different types and “doses” of facilitation were influential within very diverse contextual conditions. The process evaluation (Rycroft-Malone et al., Implementation Science. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0811-0) revealed the models of facilitation used were limited in their ability to overcome the influence of contextual factors. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502 . Date 4/2/10. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 223646.

Background: Despite a growing body of knowledge about eHealth innovations, there is still limited understanding of the implementation of such tools in everyday primary care. Objective: The objective of our study was to describe health care staff’s experience with a digital communication system intended for patient-staff encounters via a digital route in primary care. Methods: In this qualitative study we conducted 21 individual interviews with staff at 5 primary care centers in Sweden that had used a digital communication system for 6 months. The interviews were guided by narrative queries, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to content analysis. Results: While the digital communication system was easy to grasp, it was nevertheless complex to use, affecting both staffing and routines for communicating with patients, and documenting contacts. Templates strengthened equivalent procedures for patients but dictated a certain level of health and digital literacy for accuracy. Although patients expected a chat to be synchronous, asynchronous communication was extended over time. The system for digital communication benefited assessments and enabled more efficient use of resources, such as staff. On the other hand, telephone contact was faster and better for certain purposes, especially when the patient’s voice itself provided data. However, many primary care patients, particularly younger ones, expected digital routes for contact. To match preferences for communicating to a place and time that suited patients was significant; staff were willing to accept some nuisance from a suboptimal service—at least for a while—if it procured patient satisfaction. A team effort, including engaged managers, scaffolded the implementation process, whereas being subjected to a trial without likely success erected barriers. Conclusions: A digital communication system introduced in regular primary care involved complexity beyond merely learning how to manage the tool. Rather, it affected routines and required that both the team and the context were addressed. Further knowledge is needed about what factors facilitate implementation, and how. This study suggested including ethical perspectives on eHealth tools, providing an important but novel aspect of implementation.