Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27443272›Full record

ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2016

Experiences in implementation and publication of operations research interventions: gaps and a way forward.

Samuel Kalibala, Godfrey B Woelk, Stephen Gloyd, Nrupa Jani, Lynnette Kay, Avina Sarna, Jerry Okal, Charity Ndwiga, Nicole Haberland, Irit Sinai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Samuel KalibalaHIVCore/Population Council, Washington, DC, USA; skalibala@popcouncil.org.
Godfrey B WoelkElizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Washington, DC, USA.
Stephen GloydDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Nrupa JaniHIVCore/Population Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Lynnette KayRetrak Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Avina SarnaHIVCore/Population Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Jerry OkalHIVCore/Population Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Charity NdwigaHIVCore/Population Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Nicole HaberlandHIVCore/Population Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Irit SinaiPalladium, Washington DC, USA.

Funding

PEPFAR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAccording to UNAIDS, the world currently has an adequate collection of proven HIV prevention, treatment and diagnostic tools, which, if scaled up, can lay the foundation for ending the AIDS epidemic. HIV operations research (OR) tests and promotes the use of interventions that can increase the demand for and supply of these tools. However, current publications of OR mainly focus on outcomes, leaving gaps in reporting of intervention characteristics, which are essential to address for the utilization of OR findings. This has prompted WHO and other international public health agencies to issue reporting requirements for OR studies. The objective of this commentary is to review experiences in HIV OR intervention design, implementation, process data collection and publication in order to identify gaps, contribute to the body of knowledge and propose a way forward to improve the focus on "implementation" in implementation research. DISCUSSION: Interventions in OR, like ordinary service delivery programmes, are subject to the programme cycle, which continually uses insights from implementation and the local context to modify service delivery modalities. Given that some of these modifications in the intervention may influence study outcomes, the documentation of process data becomes vital in OR. However, a key challenge is that study resources tend to be skewed towards documentation and the reporting of study outcomes to the detriment of process data, even though process data is vital for understanding factors influencing the outcomes.

conclusionsInterventions in OR should be viewed using the lens of programme evaluation, which includes formative assessment (to determine concept and design), followed by process evaluation (to monitor inputs and outputs) and effectiveness evaluation (to assess outcomes and effectiveness). Study resources should be equitably used between process evaluation and outcome measurement to facilitate inclusion of data about fidelity and dose in publications in order to enable explanation of the relationship between dosing and study outcomes for purposes of scaling up and further refinement through research.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsOperations ResearchPublishingHumansProgram EvaluationPublic Healthimplementation researchintervention fidelityintervention publicationoperations researchprocess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID27443272
PMCPMC4956737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.