Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27526851›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2016

Examining the use of process evaluations of randomised controlled trials of complex interventions addressing chronic disease in primary health care-a systematic review protocol.

Hueiming Liu, Janini Muhunthan, Adina Hayek, Maree Hackett, Tracey-Lea Laba, David Peiris, Stephen Jan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Facebook Groups for the Management of Chronic Diseases.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018
    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

7 authors.

Hueiming LiuThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Level 10, King George V Building, 83-117 Missenden Rd, PO Box M201, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. hliu@georgeinstitute.org.au.
Janini MuhunthanThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Level 10, King George V Building, 83-117 Missenden Rd, PO Box M201, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Adina HayekThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Level 10, King George V Building, 83-117 Missenden Rd, PO Box M201, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Maree HackettThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Level 10, King George V Building, 83-117 Missenden Rd, PO Box M201, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Tracey-Lea LabaThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Level 10, King George V Building, 83-117 Missenden Rd, PO Box M201, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
David PeirisThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Level 10, King George V Building, 83-117 Missenden Rd, PO Box M201, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Stephen JanThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Level 10, King George V Building, 83-117 Missenden Rd, PO Box M201, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions in primary health care (PHC) are needed to provide evidence-based programmes to achieve the Declaration of Alma Ata goal of making PHC equitable, accessible and universal and to effectively address the rising burden from chronic disease. Process evaluations of these RCTs can provide insight into the causal mechanisms of complex interventions, the contextual factors, and inform as to whether an intervention is ineffective due to implementation failure or failure of the intervention itself. To build on this emerging body of work, we aim to consolidate the methodology and methods from process evaluations of complex interventions in PHC and their findings of facilitators and barriers to intervention implementation in this important area of health service delivery.

methodsSystematic review of process evaluations of randomised controlled trials of complex interventions which address prevalent major chronic diseases in PHC settings. Published process evaluations of RCTs will be identified through database and clinical trial registry searches and contact with authors. Data from each study will be extracted by two reviewers using standardised forms. Data extracted include descriptive items about (1) the RCT, (2) about the process evaluations (such as methods, theories, risk of bias, analysis of process and outcome data, strengths and limitations) and (3) any stated barriers and facilitators to conducting complex interventions. A narrative synthesis of the findings will be presented. DISCUSSION: Process evaluation findings are valuable in determining whether a complex intervention should be scaled up or modified for other contexts. Publishing this protocol serves to encourage transparency in the reporting of our synthesis of current literature on how process evaluations have been conducted thus far and a deeper understanding of potential challenges and solutions to aid in the implementation of effective interventions in PHC beyond the research setting. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016035572.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareProcess Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicChronic DiseaseEvidence-Based PracticeHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicChronic diseaseComplex interventionsPrimary health careProcess evaluationsQualitativeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27526851
PMCPMC4986376

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.