This paper aims to provide an overview of the use and assessment of qualitative research methods in the health sciences. Qualitative research can be defined as the study of the nature of phenomena and is especially appropriate for answering questions of why something is (not) observed, assessing complex multi-component interventions, and focussing on intervention improvement. The most common methods of data collection are document study, (non-) participant observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. For data analysis, field-notes and audio-recordings are transcribed into protocols and transcripts, and coded using qualitative data management software. Criteria such as checklists, reflexivity, sampling strategies, piloting, co-coding, member-checking and stakeholder involvement can be used to enhance and assess the quality of the research conducted. Using qualitative in addition to quantitative designs will equip us with better tools to address a greater range of research problems, and to fill in blind spots in current neurological research and practice.

Future research would benefit from a more uniform understanding of integrated care as well as intermediate outcome measurements that allow for the establishment of a chain of evidence from specific intervention types to specific outcomes achieved. It is expected that such a comprehensive approach will reveal important insights as to which integrated care intervention types and settings are most conducive to successful implementation and would thereby be of relevance to policy makers and practitioners involved in the financing, management and delivery of integrated care.

Objective: To develop a model for the comprehensive evaluation of integrated care interventions that provides insights into when, why and how successful outcomes can be achieved. Methods: A preliminary model was developed based on the Context þ Mechanism þ Outcome Model and further developed based on its application to a literature review, two case studies and an expert questionnaire. The COMIC Model for studying the Context, Outcomes and Mechanisms of Integrated Care interventions interventions assumes that an intervention is introduced using certain mechanisms (categorised according to the Chronic Care Model), which are met with particular context factors (described by barriers and facilitators and categorised according to the Implementation Model), which combined, contribute to specific outcomes (categorised by the WHO dimensions of quality of care). Results: Application of the COMIC model to the literature review and expert questionnaires did not allow for statements to be made about the relationships between mechanisms, context and outcomes. Application to the two case studies made it possible to (1) comprehensively analyse the mechanisms, context and outcomes of the specific case, (2) to make the relationships between the mechanisms, context and outcomes within each case visible, and (3) to compare the two cases to each other in a systematic way that added value to the analysis. Discussion: Using the COMIC Model makes it possible to comprehensively study the interplay of the mechanisms, context and outcomes of integrated care interventions and thereby provides insights into when, why and how integrated care contributes to improved outcomes.

BackgroundIntegrated care interventions for chronic conditions can lead to improved outcomes, but it is not clear when and why this is the case. This study aims to answer the following two research questions: First, what are the context, mechanisms and outcomes of integrated care for people with type 2 diabetes? Second, what are the relationships between context, mechanisms and outcomes of integrated care for people with type 2 diabetes?MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted for the period 2003–2013 in Cochrane and PubMed. Articles were included when they focussed on integrated care and type 2 diabetes, and concerned empirical research analysing the implementation of an intervention. Data extraction was performed using a common data extraction table. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The CMO model (context + mechanism = outcome) was used to study the relationship between context factors (described by the barriers and facilitators encountered in the implementation process and categorised at the six levels of the Implementation Model), mechanisms (defined as intervention types and described by their number of Chronic Care Model (sub-)components) and outcomes (the intentional and unintentional effects triggered by mechanism and context).ResultsThirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Most reported barriers to the implementation process were found at the organisational context level and most facilitators at the social context level. Due to the low number of articles reporting comparable quantitative outcome measures or in-depth qualitative information, it was not possible to make statements about the relationship between context, mechanisms and outcomes.ConclusionsEfficient resource allocation should entail increased investments at the organisational context level where most barriers are expected to occur. It is likely that investments at the social context level will also help to decrease the development of barriers at the organisational context level, especially by increasing staff involvement and satisfaction. If future research is to adequately inform practice and policy regarding the impact of these efforts on health outcomes, focus on the actual relationships between context, mechanisms and outcomes should be actively incorporated into study designs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1231-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.