Table 2.

CMO contribution and methodological quality

Published primary research studies (n = 6)
Author, year, country, citation	Design	MMAT score	Objective versus subjective data	CMO contribution level	Theory
Tekes, 2015, USA [42]	Quantitative descriptive (pre-post survey)	75%	Objective data	Low	None
Czulada, 2015, USA [43]	Multi-methods	0%	Objective data	Medium	None
Harrison, 2016, USA [45]	Mixed-methods	25%	Objective data	High	CFIR
Northway, 2015, Canada [47]	Quantitative descriptive	25%	Objective data	Medium	None
Mazzacato, 2014, Sweden [48]	Mixed-methods	75%	Objective data	High	Realist
Mazzacato, 2012, Sweden [49]	Mixed-methods	75%	Objective data	High	None
Published quality improvement case studies (n = 2)
Wong, 2016, Canada [44]	QI project commentary/descriptive	n/a	Subjective data	Medium	None
Luton, 2015, USA [46]	QI project commentary/descriptive	n/a	Subjective data	Medium	None
Unpublished quality improvement case report (n = 3)
Carman, AHRQ, 2014, USA [50]	Case report commentary/descriptive	n/a	Objective data	Medium	None
Hung, AHRQ, 2016, USA [51]	Case report Multi-methods	n/a	Objective data	Medium	CFIR
Rotter, 2014, Canada [52]	Evaluation report Multi-methods	n/a	Objective data	High	Realist

Methodological quality of the included primary studies was assessed using Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [33]. Each document was rated as low/no contribution (no or little information), medium contribution 28 (some information), and high contribution (well-described information) for context, mechanism, and outcomes contribution [32]