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 |