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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of Tuberculosis (TB) and Diabetes mellitus (DM) integrated healthcare on bidirectional screening and treatment outcomes among TB patients and people living with DM in developing countries: a systematic review.Pathogens and global health · 2023Pooled it
- What do we want to get out of this? a critical interpretive synthesis of the value of process evaluations, with a practical planning framework.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Pathfinder studies: a novel tool for process mapping data-driven health research to build global research capacity.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Article
- Monitor to innovate with feedback loops: process evaluation protocol for an anemia prevention intervention.Gates open research · 2022Article
- Process evaluation of complex interventions in chronic and neglected tropical diseases in low- and middle-income countries-a scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Article
- Process evaluation of Samoa's national salt reduction strategy (MASIMA): what interventions can be successfully replicated in lower-income countries?Implementation science : IS · 2018Article
- Facebook Groups for the Management of Chronic Diseases.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.