PMC:7450685 / 9735-12196 JSONTXT

{"target":"https://pubannotation.org/docs/sourcedb/PMC/sourceid/7450685","sourcedb":"PMC","sourceid":"7450685","source_url":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/7450685","text":"Data extraction\nThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram [14] for the data extraction is provided in Fig. 1. Initially, an assessment to identify the articles that used the PARIHS framework in any other way than merely referencing one or more of the core articles was performed (Additional file 1). For this initial assessment, all articles were read in full. After identifying articles where the PARIHS framework was used, data extraction was undertaken using a tailor-made data capture form (Additional file 1). The data capture form was developed and piloted in iterative cycles by the research team. Apart from capturing information about where (country/countries and setting/s) and with whom (professional groups and roles) PARIHS had been applied, the form included questions on whether PARIHS was used in one or more of the following ways: In planning and delivering an intervention,\nIn data analysis,\nIn the evaluation of study findings, and/or\nIn any other way.\nFig. 1 Adapted PRISMA flow diagram\nEach of these questions was followed by an open-ended item for extracting information on how this was reported [15]. To enhance reliability and data richness, each reviewer copy-pasted sections of the article corresponding to the open-ended reply into the data extraction form when appropriate and indicated page, column, and row. Two additional items captured whether the PARIHS framework had been tested or validated, as well as any reported strengths and weaknesses of the framework. Thus, we report on what the authors of the included articles claim to have done, rather than a judgment as to how and to what extent they actually used the PARIHS framework.\nFor data extraction and validation, the research team was divided into four pairs, ensuring that each article was assessed separately by at least two research team members. The pairs received batches of 20 articles at a time. Variations in the assessments were discussed until consensus was reached within the pair(s). Further, queries detected within the pairs were raised and discussed with the whole research team, until consensus was achieved. Regular whole-team online meetings were held to consolidate findings between every new batch of articles and throughout the development and analysis process. In total, the group had \u003e 20 online meetings and four face-to-face meetings from the initial establishment of the group in January 2015.","divisions":[{"label":"title","span":{"begin":0,"end":15}},{"label":"p","span":{"begin":16,"end":1057}},{"label":"p","span":{"begin":899,"end":942}},{"label":"p","span":{"begin":943,"end":960}},{"label":"p","span":{"begin":961,"end":1004}},{"label":"p","span":{"begin":1005,"end":1022}},{"label":"figure","span":{"begin":1023,"end":1057}},{"label":"label","span":{"begin":1023,"end":1029}},{"label":"caption","span":{"begin":1030,"end":1057}},{"label":"p","span":{"begin":1030,"end":1057}},{"label":"p","span":{"begin":1058,"end":1718}}],"tracks":[{"project":"2_test","denotations":[{"id":"32854718-19621072-46726986","span":{"begin":110,"end":112},"obj":"19621072"},{"id":"32854718-11526621-46726987","span":{"begin":1170,"end":1172},"obj":"11526621"},{"id":"T61935","span":{"begin":110,"end":112},"obj":"19621072"},{"id":"T48580","span":{"begin":1170,"end":1172},"obj":"11526621"}],"attributes":[{"subj":"32854718-19621072-46726986","pred":"source","obj":"2_test"},{"subj":"32854718-11526621-46726987","pred":"source","obj":"2_test"},{"subj":"T61935","pred":"source","obj":"2_test"},{"subj":"T48580","pred":"source","obj":"2_test"}]}],"config":{"attribute types":[{"pred":"source","value type":"selection","values":[{"id":"2_test","color":"#e7ec93","default":true}]}]}}