Skip to main content

Table 1 i-PARIHS Innovation construct characteristics, innovation subcodes, and subcode definitions

From: Development of a qualitative data analysis codebook informed by the i-PARIHS framework

Characteristics of the innovation [7]

Innovation subcodes

Innovation subcode definitions

Underlying knowledge sources

Evidence: research/published guidelines

Presence or absence of findings from quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods studies, as well as literature reviews, that show the efficacy, effectiveness, or other evidence for the innovation (e.g., its utility or acceptability) and also includes a discussion about published guideline recommendations

Evidence: clinical experience

Presence or absence of professional knowledge of or experience with the innovation which is embedded in or based upon clinical practice and is often tacit and intuitive

Evidence: patient needs, preferences, and experiences

Presence or absence of patients’ personal knowledge of and experiences with an innovation, including current or previous experiences with the innovation, the extent to which the innovation met/meets their needs and preferences

Evidence: local practice information

Presence or absence of sources of evidence related to the innovation from the context of care, including, but not limited to, audit and performance data, report cards, progress reports, fidelity ratings, quality improvement and program evaluation data, and financial data/implications

Clarity

Clarity

The degree to which the innovation is understood, including specifics of what components of the innovation must be implemented (for fidelity) and/or what can be adapted or changed

Degree of fit

Degree of fit

The extent to which the innovation is compatible with (1) the values and norms of individuals implementing the innovation and/or (2) the existing practices and operations of the setting, including workflows, processes, roles, and policies

Degree of novelty

Degree of novelty

The extent to which the innovation or components of the innovation are new to or different from individuals’ current thinking, ways of relating to and interacting with each other, or practice

Usability

Usability

The degree of ease or difficulty with which the innovation can be, is, or was adopted and/or used, including the accessibility and availability of information/tools/guides regarding how to adopt/use the innovation

Relative advantage

Relative advantage

Comparison of the innovation with an existing program, practice, or alternative solution and the degree to which one is perceived and/or objectively observed to be more advantageous than the other in meeting patient, clinical, and/or organizational goals and needs

Trialability

Trialability

Whether the innovation can be or has been tested (or experimented with) on a small scale, including discussion about whether it is possible or not possible to conduct a pilot

Observable results

Observable results

The degree to which positive results/benefits of an innovation are directly observable/visible

N/A

Complexitya

Ways in which the innovation itself is simple or complicated. Discussion may be about the number of innovation components and/or interaction between them, the number and difficulty of behaviors that those delivering or receiving the innovation must perform, the number of groups or organizational levels targeted by the innovation, and/or the number and variability of outcomes

  1. aSubcode added during the codebook development process