Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27965837›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2016

Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used.

Sara Levati, Pauline Campbell, Rachael Frost, Nadine Dougall, Mary Wells, Cam Donaldson, Suzanne Hagen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Qualitative research exploring the complexities of exercise promotion in prostate cancer survivorship.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Sara LevatiNMAHP Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Level 6, Govan Mbeki Building 70 Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA Scotland.
Pauline CampbellNMAHP Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Level 6, Govan Mbeki Building 70 Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA Scotland.
Rachael FrostNMAHP Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Level 6, Govan Mbeki Building 70 Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA Scotland.
Nadine DougallNMAHP Research Unit, University of Stirling, Unit 13 Scion House, Innovation Park, Stirling, FK9 4NF UK.
Mary WellsNMAHP Research Unit, University of Stirling, Unit 13 Scion House, Innovation Park, Stirling, FK9 4NF UK.
Cam DonaldsonYunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, M201, George Moore Building 70 Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA Scotland.
Suzanne HagenNMAHP Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Level 6, Govan Mbeki Building 70 Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA Scotland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany complex intervention trials fail to show an intervention effect. Although this may be due to genuine ineffectiveness, it may also be the result of sub-optimal intervention design, implementation failure or a combination of these. Given current financial constraints and the pressure to reduce waste and increase value in health services research, pre-trial strategies are needed to reduce the likelihood of design or implementation failure and to maximise the intervention's potential for effectiveness. In this scoping review, we aimed to identify and synthesise the available evidence relating to the strategies and methods used to 'optimise' complex interventions at the pre-trial stage.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO and ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source for papers published between January 2000 and March 2015. We included intervention development and optimisation studies that explored potential intervention weaknesses and limitations before moving to a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT). Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria and systematically extracted information relating to the following: study characteristics; intervention under development; framework used to guide the development process; areas of focus of the optimisation process, methods used and outcomes of the optimisation process. Data were tabulated and summarised in a narrative format.

resultsWe screened 3968 titles and 231 abstracts for eligibility. Eighty-nine full-text papers were retrieved; 27 studies met our selection criteria. Optimisation strategies were used for a range of reasons: to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to patients and healthcare professionals; to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different combinations of intervention components; and to identify potential barriers to implementation. Methods varied widely across studies, from interviews and focus groups to economic modelling and probability analysis.

conclusionsThe review identifies a range of optimisation strategies currently used. Although a preliminary classification of these strategies can be proposed, a series of questions remain as to which methods to use for different interventions and how to determine when the intervention is ready or 'optimised enough' to be tested in a RCT. Future research should explore potential answers to the questions raised, to guide researchers in the development and evaluation of more effective interventions.

Indexed as

AcceptabilityComplex interventionsEffectivenessIntervention developmentModellingOptimisationPre-trialScoping review

Identifiers

PMID27965837
PMCPMC5153688

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.