Dataset Information

Theoretical approaches to process evaluations of complex interventions in health care: a systematic scoping review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Complex interventions in health care are characterized by multiple interacting components as well as by numerous nonlinear interactions with the social systems within which they are being implemented. The process of developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions is therefore challenging. Established guidance such as the MRC (Medical Research Council) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions refers to process evaluations as an integral part of the development of complex evidence-based interventions. Even though the need for process evaluations is recognized, the realization of such approaches is challenging because methodological instruction is sparse, and the phenomenon of interest is complex. A number of theoretical approaches indicating how to conduct process evaluations of complex interventions in health care exist, but a systematic and comprehensive overview of these is missing. Thus, the objective of the systematic scoping review described herein is to provide an overview and analysis of theoretical approaches suitable for the planning and conducting of process evaluations.

Methods

The design and conduct of this review will follow the procedures of a systematic scoping review. The search strategy will be developed following the BeHEMoTh (Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) template which has been conceptualized for structured reviews of theory. The systematic search of the MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL (via EBSCO) and PsycInfo (via EBSCO) electronic databases will be complemented by "hand searching" techniques. Study selection, data extraction, and data analysis will be performed by tandems of two researchers independently of each other. Divergent decisions and judgements between the two researchers will be discussed by the whole review team.

Discussion

The findings from this scoping review will provide an overview and comparison of theoretical approaches suitable for process evaluations of complex interventions in health care. The review results will support researchers in choosing the theoretical approach that best fits the respective focus of their process evaluation study.

Systematic review registration

This study has been registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under registration number CRD42020211732 .

SUBMITTER: Quasdorf T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8499466 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveProcess evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on implementation barriers and facilitators.DesignSystematic review using the UK Medical Research Council guidance for PE as a guide.Data sourcesAcademic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE and Global Health) were searched from 1998 until June 2018.Eligibility criteriaWe included PE alongside randomised controlled trials of primary care interventions which aimed to improve outcomes for patients with non-communicable diseases.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened and conducted the data extraction and synthesis, with a third reviewer checking a sample for quality assurance.Results69 studies were included. There was an overall lack of consistency in how PEs were conducted and reported. The main weakness is that only 30 studies were underpinned by a clear intervention theory often facilitated by the use of existing theoretical frameworks. The main strengths were robust sampling strategies, and the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data to understand an intervention's mechanisms. Findings were synthesised into three key themes: (1) a fundamental mismatch between what the intervention was designed to achieve and local needs; (2) the required roles and responsibilities of key actors were often not clearly understood; and (3) the health system context-factors such as governance, financing structures and workforce-if unanticipated could adversely impact implementation.ConclusionGreater consistency is needed in the reporting and the methods of PEs, in particular greater use of theoretical frameworks to inform intervention theory. More emphasis on formative research in designing interventions is needed to align the intervention with the needs of local stakeholders, and to minimise unanticipated consequences due to context-specific barriers.Prospero registration numberCRD42016035572.

Project description:BackgroundNormalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies, characterises and explains key mechanisms that promote and inhibit the implementation, embedding and integration of new health techniques, technologies and other complex interventions. A large body of literature that employs NPT to inform feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions has now emerged. The aims of this review were to review this literature; to identify and characterise the uses and limits of NPT in research on the implementation and integration of healthcare interventions; and to explore NPT's contribution to understanding the dynamics of these processes.MethodsA qualitative systematic review was conducted. We searched Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles with empirical data in peer-reviewed journals that cited either key papers presenting and developing NPT, or the NPT Online Toolkit ( www.normalizationprocess.org ). We included in the review only articles that used NPT as the primary approach to collection, analysis or reporting of data in studies of the implementation of healthcare techniques, technologies or other interventions. A structured data extraction instrument was used, and data were analysed qualitatively.ResultsSearches revealed 3322 citations. We show that after eliminating 2337 duplicates and broken or junk URLs, 985 were screened as titles and abstracts. Of these, 101 were excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 884 articles for full-text screening. Of these, 754 did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 130 papers presenting results from 108 identifiable studies to be included in the review. NPT appears to provide researchers and practitioners with a conceptual vocabulary for rigorous studies of implementation processes. It identifies, characterises and explains empirically identifiable mechanisms that motivate and shape implementation processes. Taken together, these mean that analyses using NPT can effectively assist in the explanation of the success or failure of specific implementation projects. Ten percent of papers included critiques of some aspect of NPT, with those that did mainly focusing on its terminology. However, two studies critiqued NPT emphasis on agency, and one study critiqued NPT for its normative focus.ConclusionsThis review demonstrates that researchers found NPT useful and applied it across a wide range of interventions. It has been effectively used to aid intervention development and implementation planning as well as evaluating and understanding implementation processes themselves. In particular, NPT appears to have offered a valuable set of conceptual tools to aid understanding of implementation as a dynamic process.

Project description:IntroductionSedentary behaviour is defined as any waking behaviour characterised by low energy expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents while in a sitting, lying or reclining posture. The expanding evidence base suggests that sedentary behaviour may have a detrimental effect on health, well-being and is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. We aim to review process evaluations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which included a measure of sedentary behaviour in adults in order to develop an understanding of intervention content, mechanisms of impact, implementation and delivery approaches and contexts, in which interventions were reported to be effective or effective. A secondary aim is to summarise participants, family and staff experiences of such interventions.Methods and analysisTen electronic databases and reference lists from previous similar reviews will be searched. Eligible studies will be process evaluations of RCTs that measure sedentary behaviour as a primary or secondary outcome in adults. As this review will contribute to a programme to develop a community-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in stroke survivors, interventions delivered in schools, colleges, universities or workplaces will be excluded. Two reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by a third reviewer. Process evaluation data to be extracted include the aims and methods used in the process evaluation; implementation data; mechanisms of impact; contextual factors; participant, family and staff experiences of the interventions. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidance.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Prospero registration numberCRD42018087403.

Project description:IntroductionThe growing interest in networks of interactions is sustained by the conviction that they can be leveraged to improve the quality and efficiency of healthcare delivery systems. Evidence in support of this conviction, however, is mostly based on descriptive studies. Systematic evaluation of the outcomes of network interventions in healthcare settings is still wanting. Despite the proliferation of studies based on Social Network Analysis (SNA) tools and techniques, we still know little about how intervention programs aimed at altering existing patterns of social interaction among healthcare providers affect the quality of service delivery. We update and extend prior reviews by providing a comprehensive assessment of available evidence.Methods and findingsWe searched eight databases to identify papers using SNA in healthcare settings published between 1st January 2010 and 1st May 2022. We followed Chambers et al.'s (2012) approach, using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We distinguished between studies relying on SNA as part of an intervention program, and studies using SNA for descriptive purposes only. We further distinguished studies recommending a possible SNA-based intervention. We restricted our focus on SNA performed on networks among healthcare professionals (e.g., doctors, nurses, etc.) in any healthcare setting (e.g., hospitals, primary care, etc.). Our final review included 102 papers. The majority of the papers used SNA for descriptive purposes only. Only four studies adopted SNA as an intervention tool, and measured outcome variables.ConclusionsWe found little evidence for SNA-based intervention programs in healthcare settings. We discuss the reasons and challenges, and identify the main component elements of a network intervention plan. Future research should seek to evaluate the long-term role of SNA in changing practices, policies and behaviors, and provide evidence of how these changes affect patients and the quality of service delivery.

Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically review and synthesise findings from process evaluations of interventions in trials which measured sedentary behaviour as an outcome in adults to explore: (1) how intervention content, implementation, mechanisms of impact and context influence outcomes and (2) how these interventions are experienced from different perspectives (participants, carers, staff).DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis underpinned by the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework.Data sourcesDatabases searches were conducted in March 2019 then updated in May 2020 and October 2021 in: CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED; EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.Eligibility criteriaWe included: Process evaluations of trials including interventions where sedentary behaviour was measured as an outcome in adults aged 16 or over from clinical or non-clinical populations. We excluded studies if interventions were delivered in educational or workplace settings, or if they were laboratory studies focused on immediate effects of breaking sitting.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted and coded data into a framework and assessed the quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesised findings using a narrative approach.Results17 process evaluations were included. Five interventions focused on reducing sedentary behaviour or sitting time, 12 aimed to increase physical activity or promote healthier lifestyles. Process evaluations indicated changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes were shaped by numerous factors including: barriers (eg, staffing difficulties and scheduling problems) and facilitators (eg, allowing for flexibility) to intervention delivery; contextual factors (eg, usual lifestyle and religious events) and individual factors (eg, pain, tiredness, illness, age and individual preferences).DiscussionIntervention requires careful consideration of different factors that could influence changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes to ensure that interventions can be tailored to suit different individuals and groups.Prospero registration numberCRD42018087403.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The effectiveness of complex interventions for the management of musculoskeletal disorders has been estimated in many randomised clinical trials (RCTs). These trials inform which interventions are the most effective, however they do not always inform how an intervention achieved its clinical outcomes, nor how and what elements of an intervention were delivered to patients. Such information is useful for translating findings into clinical practice. A few process evaluation studies have been conducted alongside RCTs and a variety of methods have been used. To gain a better understanding of current practices of process evaluation in RCTs in musculoskeletal disorders, this systematic review is designed to answer the following research question: How are process evaluation of complex interventions tested in RCTs in musculoskeletal disorders being conducted? METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will systematically search seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane database) from the date of inception to August 2018 for studies on process evaluation of RCTs on non-surgical and non-pharmacological management of musculoskeletal disorders. We will include qualitative and quantitative studies conducted alongside RCTs, reported with the RCTs or separate studies that assessed interventions for musculoskeletal disorders. Two reviewers will screen abstracts and apply prespecified inclusion criteria to identify relevant studies, extract the data and assess the risk of bias within included studies. We will follow recommendations from the 'Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance Series' when assessing methodological strengths and limitations of included studies. We will use a narrative synthesis to describe findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval is not required as this review will not collect original data. Findings from this systematic review will be presented at a scientific conference and published in a peer reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018109600.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Equity in health has become an important policy agenda around the world, prompting health economists to advance methods to enable the inclusion of equity in economic evaluations. Among the methods that have been proposed to explicitly include equity are the weighting analysis, equity impact analysis, and equity trade-off analysis. This is a new development and a comprehensive overview of trends and concepts of health equity in economic evaluations is lacking. Thus, our objective is to map the current state of the literature with respect to how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions reported in the academic and gray literature. METHODS:We will conduct a scoping review to identify and map evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions. We will search relevant electronic, gray literature and key journals. We developed a search strategy using text words and Medical Subject Headings terms related to health equity and economic evaluations of health interventions. Articles retrieved will be uploaded to reference manager software for screening and data extraction. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles based on their titles and abstracts for inclusion, and then will independently screen a full text to ascertain final inclusion. A simple numerical count will be used to quantify the data and a content analysis will be conducted to present the narrative; that is, a thematic summary of the data collected. DISCUSSION:The results of this scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions and its research gaps. It will also provide key information to decision-makers and policy-makers to understand ways to include health equity into the prioritization of health interventions when aiming for a more equitable distribution of health resources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:This protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) Registry on August 14, 2019 (https://osf.io/9my2z/registrations).

Project description:BackgroundThe use of process evaluations is a growing area of interest in research groups working on complex interventions. This methodology tries to understand how the intervention was implemented to inform policy and practice. A recent systematic review by Liu et al. on process evaluations of complex interventions addressing non-communicable diseases found few studies in low- and middle- income countries (LMIC) because it was restricted to randomized controlled trials, primary healthcare level and non-communicable diseases. Yet, LMICs face different barriers to implement interventions in comparison to high-income countries such as limited human resources, access to health care and skills of health workers to treat chronic conditions especially at primary health care level. Therefore, understanding the challenges of interventions for non-communicable diseases and neglected tropical diseases (diseases that affect poor populations and have chronic sequelae) will be important to improve how process evaluation is designed, conducted and used in research projects in LMICs. For these reasons, in comparison to the study of Liu et al., the current study will expand the search strategy to include different study designs, languages and settings.ObjectiveMap research using process evaluation in the areas of non-communicable diseases and neglected tropical diseases to inform the gaps in the design and conduct of this type of research in LMICs.MethodsScoping review of process evaluation studies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of complex interventions implemented in LMICs including participants with non-communicable diseases or neglected tropical diseases and their health care providers (physicians, nurses, technicians and others) related to achieve better health for all through reforms in universal coverage, public policy, service delivery and leadership. The aspects that will be evaluated are as follows: (i) available evidence of process evaluation in the areas of non-communicable diseases and neglected tropical diseases such as frameworks and theories, (ii) methods applied to conduct process evaluations and (iii) gaps between the design of the intervention and its implementation that were identified through the process evaluation. Studies published from January 2008. Exclusion criteria are as follows: not peer reviewed articles, not a report based on empirical research, not reported in English or Spanish or Portuguese or French, reviews and non-human research.DiscussionThis scoping review will map the evidence of process evaluations conducted in LMICs. It will also identify the methods they used to collect and interpret data, how different theories and frameworks were used and lessons from the implementation of complex interventions. This information will allow researchers to conduct better process evaluations considering special characteristics from countries with limited human resources, scarce data available and limited access to health care.