Dataset Information

Developing interventions to improve health: a systematic mapping review of international practice between 2015 and 2016.

ABSTRACT: Background:Researchers publish the processes they use to develop interventions to improve health. Reflecting on this endeavour may help future developers to improve their practice. Methods:Our aim was to collate, describe, and analyse the actions developers take when developing complex interventions to improve health. We carried out a systematic mapping review of empirical research studies that report the development of complex interventions to improve health. A search was undertaken of five databases over 2015-2016 using the term 'intervention dev*'. Eighty-seven journal articles reporting the process of intervention development were identified. A purposive subset of 30 articles, using a range of published approaches to developing interventions, was selected for in-depth analysis using principles of realist synthesis to identify the actions of intervention development and rationales underpinning those actions. Results:The 87 articles were from the USA (39/87), the UK (32/87), continental Europe (6/87), and the rest of the world (10/87). These mainly took a pragmatic self-selected approach (n?=?43); a theory- and evidence-based approach, e.g. Intervention Mapping, Behaviour Change Wheel (n?=?22); or a partnership approach, e.g. community-based participatory research, co-design (n?=?10). Ten actions of intervention development were identified from the subset of 30 articles, including identifying a need for an intervention, selecting the intervention development approach to follow, considering the needs of the target population, reviewing published evidence, involving stakeholders, drawing or generating theory, and designing and refining the intervention. Rationales for these actions were that they would produce more engaging, acceptable, feasible, and effective interventions. Conclusions:Developers take a variety of approaches to the international endeavour of complex intervention development. We have identified and described a set of actions taken within this endeavour regardless of whether developers follow a published approach or not. Future developers can use these actions and the rationales that underpin them to help them make decisions about the process of intervention development. Trial registration:PROSPERO, CRD42017080545.

SUBMITTER: Croot L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6839208 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Developing interventions to improve health: a systematic mapping review of international practice between 2015 and 2016.

Croot Liz L O'Cathain Alicia A Sworn Katie K Yardley Lucy L Turner Katrina K Duncan Edward E Hoddinott Pat P

Pilot and feasibility studies 20191108

<h4>Background</h4>Researchers publish the processes they use to develop interventions to improve health. Reflecting on this endeavour may help future developers to improve their practice.<h4>Methods</h4>Our aim was to collate, describe, and analyse the actions developers take when developing complex interventions to improve health. We carried out a systematic mapping review of empirical research studies that report the development of complex interventions to improve health. A search was underta ...[more]

PMID: 31720005

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInterventions need to be developed prior to the feasibility and piloting phase of a study. There are a variety of published approaches to developing interventions, programmes or innovations to improve health. Identifying different types of approach, and synthesising the range of actions taken within this endeavour, can inform future intervention development.MethodsThis study is a systematic methods overview of approaches to intervention development. Approaches were considered for inclusion if they described how to develop or adapt an intervention in a book, website or journal article published after 2007, or were cited in a primary research study reporting the development of a specific intervention published in 2015 or 2016. Approaches were read, a taxonomy of approaches was developed and the range of actions taken across different approaches were synthesised.ResultsEight categories of approach to intervention development were identified. (1) Partnership, where people who will use the intervention participate equally with the research team in decision-making about the intervention throughout the development process. (2) Target population-centred, where the intervention is based on the views and actions of the people who will use it. (3) Evidence and theory-based, where the intervention is based on published research evidence and existing theories. (4) Implementation-based, where the intervention is developed with attention to ensuring it will be used in the real world. (5) Efficiency-based, where components of an intervention are tested using experimental designs to select components which will optimise efficiency. (6) Stepped or phased, where interventions are developed with an emphasis on following a systematic set of processes. (7) Intervention-specific, where an approach is constructed for a specific type of intervention. (8) Combination, where existing approaches to intervention development are formally combined. The actions from approaches in all eight categories were synthesised to identify 18 actions to consider when developing interventions.ConclusionsThis overview of approaches to intervention development can help researchers to understand the variety of existing approaches, and to understand the range of possible actions involved in intervention development, prior to assessing feasibility or piloting the intervention. Findings from this overview will contribute to future guidance on intervention development.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017080553.

Project description:BackgroundRapid developments and implementation of digital technologies in public health domains throughout the last decades have changed the landscape of health delivery and disease prevention globally. A growing number of countries are introducing interventions such as online consultations, electronic health records, or telemedicine to their health systems to improve their populations' health and improve access to health care. Despite multiple definitions for digital public health and the development of different digital interventions, no study has analyzed whether the utilized technologies fit the definition or the core characteristics of digital public health interventions. A scoping review is therefore needed to explore the extent of the literature on this topic.ObjectiveThe main aim of this scoping review is to outline real-world digital public health interventions on all levels of health care, prevention, and health. The second objective will be the mapping of reported intervention characteristics. These will include nontechnical elements and the technical features of an intervention.MethodsWe searched for relevant literature in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Xplore, and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Full-Text Collection. All original study types (observational studies, experimental trials, qualitative studies, and health-economic analyses), as well as governmental reports, books, book chapters, or peer-reviewed full-text conference papers were included when the evaluation and description of a digital health intervention was the primary intervention component. Two authors screened the articles independently in three stages (title, abstract, and full text). Two independent authors will also perform the data charting. We will report our results following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist.ResultsAn additional systematic search in IEEE Xplore and ACM, performed on December 1, 2021, identified another 491 titles. We identified a total of 13,869 papers after deduplication. As of March 2022, the abstract screening state is complete, and we are in the state of screening the 1417 selected full texts for final inclusion. We estimate completing the review in April 2022.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this will be the first scoping review to fill the theoretical definitions of digital public health with concrete interventions and their characteristics. Our scoping review will display the landscape of worldwide existing digital public health interventions that use information and communication technologies. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal in early 2022, which can serve as a blueprint for the development of future digital public health interventions.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/33404.

Project description:This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice. The aim is to inform and improve capacity building interventions.Four strategies were used: 1) electronic database searching; 2) reference lists of included papers; 3) key informant consultation; and 4) grey literature searching. Inclusion (e.g., published in English) and exclusion criteria (e.g., non-English language papers published earlier than 2005) are outlined with included papers focusing on capacity building, learning plans, or professional development plans within public health and related settings, such as non-governmental organizations, government, or community-based organizations relating to public health or healthcare. Outcomes of interest included changes in knowledge, skill or confidence (self-efficacy), changes in practice (application or intent), and perceived support or supportive environments, with outcomes reported at the individual, organizational or systems level(s). Quality assessment of all included papers was completed.Fourteen papers were included in this review. These papers reported on six intervention types: 1) internet-based instruction, 2) training and workshops, 3) technical assistance, 4) education using self-directed learning, 5) communities of practice, and 6) multi-strategy interventions. The available literature showed improvements in one or more capacity-building outcomes of interest, mainly in terms of individual-level outcomes. The available literature was moderate in quality and showed a range of methodological issues.There is evidence to inform capacity building programming and how interventions can be selected to optimize impact. Organizations should carefully consider methods for analysis of capacity building interventions offered; specifically, through which mechanisms, to whom, and for which purpose. Capacity-building interventions can enhance knowledge, skill, self-efficacy (including confidence), changes in practice or policies, behaviour change, application, and system-level capacity. However in applying available evidence, organizations should consider the outcomes of highest priority, selecting intervention(s) effective for the outcome(s) of interest. Examples are given for selecting intervention(s) to match priorities and context, knowing effectiveness evidence is only one consideration in decision making. Future evaluations should: extend beyond the individual level, assess outcomes at organizational and systems levels, include objective measures of effect, assess baseline conditions, and evaluate features most critical to the success of interventions.

Project description:BackgroundPublic mental health (PMH) aims to improve wellbeing and prevent poor mental health at the population level. It is a global challenge and a UK priority area for action. Communities play an important role in the provision of PMH interventions. However, the evidence base concerning community-based PMH interventions is limited, meaning it is challenging to compare service provision to need. Without this, the efficient and equitable provision of services is hindered. Here, we sought to map the current range of community-based interventions for improving mental health and wellbeing currently provided in England to inform priority areas for policy and service intervention.MethodWe adopted an established mapping exercise methodology, comparing service provision with demographic and deprivation statistics. Five local authority areas of England were selected based on differing demographics, mental health needs and wider challenging circumstances (i.e. high deprivation). Community-based interventions were identified through: 1) desk-based research 2) established professional networks 3) chain-referral sampling of individuals involved in local mental health promotion and prevention and 4) peer researchers' insight. We included all community-based, non-clinical interventions aimed at adult residents operating between July 2019 and May 2020.Results407 interventions were identified across the five areas addressing 16 risk/protective factors for PMH. Interventions for social isolation and loneliness were most prevalent, most commonly through social activities and/or befriending services. The most common subpopulations targeted were older adults and people from minority ethnic backgrounds. Interventions focusing on broader structural and environmental determinants were uncommon. There was some evidence of service provision being tailored to local need, though this was inconsistent, meaning some at-risk groups such as men or LGBTQ+ people from minority ethnic backgrounds were missed. Interventions were not consistently evaluated.ConclusionsThere was evidence of partial responsiveness to national and local prioritising. Provision was geared mainly towards addressing social and individual determinants of PMH, suggesting more integration is needed to engage wider service providers and policy-makers in PMH strategy and delivery at the community level. The lack of comprehensive evaluation of services to improve PMH needs to be urgently addressed to determine the extent of their effectiveness in communities they serve.

Project description:Health information is readily accessible but is of variable quality. General knowledge about how to assess whether claims about health interventions are trustworthy is not common, so people's health decisions can be ill-informed, unnecessarily costly and even unsafe. This review aims to identify and evaluate studies of educational interventions designed to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating claims about the effects of health interventions.We searched multiple electronic databases and sources of grey literature. Inclusion criteria included all study types that included a comparison, any participants (except health professionals or health professional students) and educational interventions aimed at improving people's understanding of one or more of the key concepts considered necessary for assessing health intervention claims. Knowledge and/or understanding of concepts or skills relevant to evaluating health information were our primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included behaviour, confidence, attitude and satisfaction with the educational interventions. Two authors independently screened search results, assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Results were summarised using descriptive synthesis.Among 24 eligible studies, 14 were randomised trials and 10 used other study designs. There was heterogeneity across study participants, settings and educational intervention type, content and delivery. The risk of bias was high in at least one domain for all randomised studies. Most studies measured outcomes immediately after the educational intervention, with few measuring later. In most of the comparisons, measures of knowledge and skills were better among those who had received educational interventions than among controls, and some of these differences were statistically significant. The effects on secondary outcomes were inconsistent.Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims can improve people's knowledge and skills, at least in the short term. Effects on confidence, attitude and behaviour are uncertain. Many of the studies were at moderate or greater risk of bias. Improvements in study quality, consistency of outcome measures and measures of longer-term effects are needed to improve confidence in estimates of the effects of educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims.PROSPERO CRD42016033103.

Dataset Information

Developing interventions to improve health: a systematic mapping review of international practice between 2015 and 2016.

Publications

Developing interventions to improve health: a systematic mapping review of international practice between 2015 and 2016.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets