We used the framework method to structure our qualitative analysis (Gale et al., 2013 (link);
J.Smith & Firth,
2011 ) and thematic analysis as our methodological orientation
(Braun & Clarke, 2012). Coding was conducted using MAXQDA 2020 (MAXQDA 2020 ). To
characterize factors that affected clinical decision-making, we applied
deductive codes from the EPIS framework (Aarons et al., 2011 (link)) derived from a
list of EPIS factors and their definitions published in a recent systematic
review (Moullin et al.,
2019 ). We coded for outer context factors (e.g., federal and
state Medicaid policy), inner-context factors (e.g., agency
characteristics), innovation or EBP factors (e.g., fit of the EBP within the
setting), and bridging factors (e.g., characteristics of external
consultants helping to support implementation). It was difficult to
characterize the stage of implementation (i.e., Exploration, Preparation,
Implementation, and Sustainment) for this project, as clinicians were
already implementing the EBP (though at a very low frequency). Furthermore,
the system had not yet determined whether they would use any implementation
strategies to support parent coaching use in the future. For this reason, we
decided it was most helpful to document EPIS factors that were involved in
the clinical decision-making process, rather than focusing on any specific
stage of implementation.
In addition to the 16 deductive codes, one additional inductive code was
used: logistical barriers (e.g., rural areas were difficult to access for
in-home parent coaching services during winter). The coders felt that these
logistical factors were not always better explained by existing deductive
codes. SeeTable 2 in Moullin et al., 2019 (link) for all codes and definitions.
J.
2011
(Braun & Clarke, 2012). Coding was conducted using MAXQDA 2020 (MAXQDA 2020 ). To
characterize factors that affected clinical decision-making, we applied
deductive codes from the EPIS framework (Aarons et al., 2011 (link)) derived from a
list of EPIS factors and their definitions published in a recent systematic
review (
2019
state Medicaid policy), inner-context factors (e.g., agency
characteristics), innovation or EBP factors (e.g., fit of the EBP within the
setting), and bridging factors (e.g., characteristics of external
consultants helping to support implementation). It was difficult to
characterize the stage of implementation (i.e., Exploration, Preparation,
Implementation, and Sustainment) for this project, as clinicians were
already implementing the EBP (though at a very low frequency). Furthermore,
the system had not yet determined whether they would use any implementation
strategies to support parent coaching use in the future. For this reason, we
decided it was most helpful to document EPIS factors that were involved in
the clinical decision-making process, rather than focusing on any specific
stage of implementation.
In addition to the 16 deductive codes, one additional inductive code was
used: logistical barriers (e.g., rural areas were difficult to access for
in-home parent coaching services during winter). The coders felt that these
logistical factors were not always better explained by existing deductive
codes. See
