Cases | Themes | ||
---|---|---|---|
 | Theme 1: Intervention characteristics | ||
Relative advantage | Adaptability | ||
Case 1 | The benefits of sociodemographic data collection were recognized and described by managers in all three cases (+) | The process of implementation was adapted to each context (+) | Only a subset of sociodemographic questions was perceived to be relevant (−) |
Case 2 | Not mentioned | ||
Case 3 | A single question about Indigenous identity was implemented (−) | ||
 | Theme 2: Outer setting | ||
External policies and incentives | |||
Case 1 | Not mentioned | ||
Case 2 | Required by funders to collect sociodemographic information (+) | ||
Case 3 | Not mentioned | ||
 | Theme 3: Inner setting | ||
Relative priority and perceived tension for change | Readiness for change | Availability of resources | |
Case 1 | District review had already prioritized social determinants of health and was consistent with the focus on enhancing sociodemographic data collection (+) | All managers described engaged leadership and support for implementation of sociodemographic data collection (+) | Limited time for clinical tasks (−) |
Case 2 | Core service priorities were well aligned with implementation of sociodemographic data collection (+) | Added time not perceived as value added for patients (−) Limited staff and finances for implementation (−) | |
Case 3 | Current approaches for targeting Indigenous individuals for cultural support were not optimal (+) | Legacy IT system limited the number of questions and response options that could be added (−) | |
 | Theme 4: Characteristics of individuals | ||
Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about the intervention | |||
Case 1 | Perception that some care providers were uncomfortable with sociodemographic data collection | ||
Case 2 | Staff had experience and were already collecting some sociodemographic data (+) | ||
Case 3 | Manager described staff discomfort with data collection (−) | Staff perceived that patients would be uncomfortable with data collection (−) |