Dataset Information

The what, why and when of adapting interventions for new contexts: A qualitative study of researchers, funders, journal editors and practitioners' understandings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The adaptation of interventions for new contexts is a rapidly developing research area. To date there is no consensus-based guidance to support decision-making and recommend adaptation processes. The ADAPT study is developing such guidance. This aim of the qualitative component of the study was to explore stakeholders' understandings of adaptation, as to date there has limited consideration of how different concepts and meanings shape decision-making and practice.

Methods

A case study research design was used. Participants/cases were purposefully sampled based on study outcome, study design, expertise, context and country. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers (n = 23); representatives from research funding panels (n = 6); journal editors (n = 5) and practitioners (n = 3). Data were analysed using the Framework approach. Overarching themes were discussed with the ADAPT study team, with further iterative refinement of subthemes.

Results

The results generated four central themes. Four themes related to stakeholders' understanding: 1) definitions of adaptation and related concepts; 2) rationales for undertaking adaptation; 3) the appropriate timing for adaptation; and 4) ensuring fidelity when implementing adapted interventions.

Conclusion

The findings highlight the lack of clarity around key concepts and uncertainty about central decision-making processes, notably why interventions should be adapted, when and to what extent. This has informed the ADAPT study's guidance, shaping the scope and nature of recommendations to be included and surfacing key uncertainties that require future consideration.

SUBMITTER: Copeland L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8270163 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesResearch on the adaptation of population health interventions for implementation in new contexts is rapidly expanding. This has been accompanied by a recent increase in the number of frameworks and guidance to support adaptation processes. Nevertheless, there remains limited exploration of the real-world experiences of undertaking intervention adaptation, notably the challenges encountered by different groups of stakeholders, and how these are managed. Understanding experiences is imperative in ensuring that guidance to support adaptation has practical utility. This qualitative study examines researcher and stakeholder experiences of funding, conducting and reporting adaptation research.SettingAdaptation studies.ParticipantsParticipants/cases were purposefully sampled to represent a range of adapted interventions, types of evaluations, expertise and countries. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers (n=23), representatives from research funding panels (n=6), journal editors (n=5) and practitioners (n=3).MeasuresA case study research design was used. Data were analysed using the framework approach. Overarching themes were discussed within the study team, with further iterative refinement of subthemes.ResultsThe results generated four central themes. The first three relate to the experience of intervention adaptation (1) involving stakeholders throughout the adaptation process and how to integrate the evidence base with experience; (2) selecting the intervention and negotiating the mismatch between the original and the new context; and (3) the complexity and uncertainty when deciding the re-evaluation process. The final theme (4) reflects on participants' experiences of using adaptation frameworks in practice, considering recommendations for future guidance development and refinement.ConclusionThis study highlights the range of complexities and challenges experienced in funding, conducting and reporting research on intervention adaptation. Moving forward, guidance can be helpful in systematising processes, provided that it remains responsive to local contexts and encourage innovative practice.

Project description:BackgroundAdapting interventions that have worked elsewhere can save resources associated with developing new interventions for each specific context. While a developing body of evidence shows benefits of adapted interventions compared with interventions transported without adaptation, there are also examples of interventions which have been extensively adapted, yet have not worked in the new context. Decisions on when, to what extent, and how to adapt interventions therefore are not straightforward, particularly when conceptualising intervention effects as contingent upon contextual interactions in complex systems. No guidance currently addresses these questions comprehensively. To inform development of an overarching guidance on adaptation of complex population health interventions, this systematic review synthesises the content of the existing guidance papers.MethodsWe searched for papers published between January 2000 and October 2018 in 7 bibliographic databases. We used citation tracking and contacted authors and experts to locate further papers. We double screened all the identified records. We extracted data into the following categories: descriptive information, key concepts and definitions, rationale for adaptation, aspects of adaptation, process of adaptation, evaluating and reporting adapted interventions. Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers, and retrieved data were synthesised thematically within pre-specified and emergent categories.ResultsWe retrieved 6694 unique records. Thirty-eight papers were included in the review representing 35 sources of guidance. Most papers were developed in the USA in the context of implementing evidence-informed interventions among different population groups within the country, such as minority populations. We found much agreement on how the papers defined key concepts, aims, and procedures of adaptation, including involvement of key stakeholders, but also identified gaps in scope, conceptualisation, and operationalisation in several categories.ConclusionsOur review found limitations that should be addressed in future guidance on adaptation. Specifically, future guidance needs to be reflective of adaptations in the context of transferring interventions across countries, including macro- (e.g. national-) level interventions, better theorise the role of intervention mechanisms and contextual interactions in the replicability of effects and accordingly conceptualise key concepts, such as fidelity to intervention functions, and finally, suggest evidence-informed strategies for adaptation re-evaluation and reporting.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2018, CRD42018112714.

Project description:BackgroundImplementing evidence-informed population health interventions in new contexts often requires adaptations. While the need to adapt interventions to better fit new contexts is recognised, uncertainties remain regarding why and when to adapt (or not), and how to assess the benefits (or not) of adaptation. The ADAPT Study aims to develop comprehensive guidance on adaptation. This scoping review informs guidance development by mapping and exploring how adaptation has been undertaken in practice, in public health and health services research.MethodsWe searched seven databases from January 2000 and October 2018 to identify eligible studies for this scoping review and a related systematic review of adaptation guidance. We mapped the studies of adaptation by coding data from all eligible studies describing the methods, contexts, and interventions considered for adaptation. From this map, we selected a sample of studies for in-depth examination. Two reviewers extracted data independently into seven categories: description, key concepts, types, rationale, processes, evaluation methods, evaluation justification, and accounts of failures and successes.ResultsWe retrieved 6694 unique records. From 429 records screened at full text, we identified 298 eligible studies for mapping and selected 28 studies for in-depth examination. The majority of studies in our map focused on micro- (i.e., individual-) level interventions (84%), related to transferring an intervention to a new population group within the same country (62%) and did not report using guidance (73%). Studies covered a range of topic areas, including health behaviour (24%), mental health (19%), sexual health (16%), and parenting and family-centred interventions (15%). Our in-depth analysis showed that adaptation is seen to save costs and time relative to developing a new intervention, and to enhance contextual relevance and cultural compatibility. It commonly follows a structured process and involves stakeholders to help with decisions on what to adapt, when, and how.ConclusionsAdaptation has been undertaken on a range of health topics and largely in line with existing guidance. Significant gaps relate to adaptation of macro- (e.g., national-) level interventions, consideration of programme theories, mechanisms and contexts (i.e., a functional view of interventions), nuances around stakeholder involvement, and evaluation of the adapted interventions. Registration Open Science Framework, 2019, osf.io/udzma.

Project description:Background:Each year, an estimated 17 million children suffer from severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and 33 million from moderate acute malnutrition (MAM), with many of the most severe cases found in extremely food insecure contexts or conflict situations. Current global outpatient treatment protocols for uncomplicated SAM and MAM, adapted by most countries for use at national level, call for SAM and MAM to be managed separately, however global-level stakeholders have recently begun evaluating simplified and/or combined protocols managing acute malnutrition. Methods:This study analyzes national policy discussions and decision-making around outpatient acute malnutrition treatment for uncomplicated cases in emergency situations in Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan. Data collection (March-July 2018) included semi-structured in-depth interviews with 50 respondents (N?=?11-15 per country) from government, funding agencies, and implementing partners, as well as 11 global and regional stakeholders. We also conducted a document analysis (N?=?10-15 per country and at global level) to situate debates and evaluate current policy. Data were analyzed iteratively using thematic content analysis. Results:We find that while combined/simplified protocols for outpatient management of uncomplicated cases of acute malnutrition are being used in emergency situations in all four countries, there is widespread confusion about protocol terminology and content, stemming from a lack of coherence at the global level. As a result, national-level stakeholders express diverse, if overlapping, rationales for modifying current protocols, which vary given the intensity and scope of the emergency. Without specific global-level guidance, combined/simplified protocols are often used on an ad hoc basis, although the processes for triggering them were at least nominally controlled at the national level. Decisions about when and where to enact "exceptional" modifications to country protocols were often based on inconsistent determinations of what constitutes an "emergency." Respondents said more evidence is needed on both clinical and operational aspects of these protocols, and they awaited clear guidance from global norm-setting agencies. Conclusions:Based on these findings, global-level stakeholders should urgently improve coordination and communication around existing protocols. Standardized guidance based on the available evidence is required to clarify best practices for combined management of SAM and MAM, particularly in emergency contexts (which should be defined) and in situations of limited resources. Given the complexity of governance arrangements in conflict situations, both guidance and updates on research must be disseminated in a rational, systematic, and digestible way to the multiplicity of field actors.

Project description:BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often regarded as the gold standard of evidence, and subsequently go on to inform policymaking. Cochrane Reviews synthesise this type of evidence to create recommendations for practice, policy, and future research. Here, we critically appraise the RCTs included in the childhood obesity prevention Cochrane Review to understand the focus of these interventions when examined through a wider determinants of health (WDoH) lens.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of the interventions included in the Cochrane Review on "Interventions for Preventing Obesity in Children", published since 1993. All 153 RCTs were independently coded by two authors against the WDoH model using an adaptive framework synthesis approach. We used aspects of the Action Mapping Tool from Public Health England to facilitate our coding and to visualise our findings against the 226 perceived causes of obesity.ResultsThe proportion of interventions which targeted downstream (e.g. individual and family behaviours) as opposed to upstream (e.g. infrastructure, environmental, policy) determinants has not changed over time (from 1993 to 2015), with most intervention efforts (57.9%) aiming to change individual lifestyle factors via education-based approaches. Almost half of the interventions (45%) targeted two or more levels of the WDoH. Where interventions targeted some of the wider determinants, this was often achieved via upskilling teachers to deliver educational content to children. No notable difference in design or implementation was observed between interventions targeting children of varying ages (0-5 years, 6-12 years, 13-18 years).ConclusionsThis study highlights that interventions, evaluated via RCTs, have persisted to focus on downstream, individualistic determinants of obesity over the last 25 years, despite the step change in our understanding of its complex aetiology. We hope that the findings from our analysis will challenge research funders, researchers, policymakers and practitioners to reflect upon, and critique, the evidence-based paradigm in which we operate, and call for a shift in focus of new evidence which better accounts for the complexity of obesity.