Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28870192›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2017

Development of a framework for the co-production and prototyping of public health interventions.

Jemma Hawkins, Kim Madden, Adam Fletcher, Luke Midgley, Aimee Grant, Gemma Cox, Laurence Moore, Rona Campbell, Simon Murphy, Chris Bonell and 1 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 157 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
157citing papers in PubMed, 7 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.

NCT06575764 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

The Heart Priority Programme for Patients at Risk of Dropout From Cardiac Rehabilitation - a Development- and Feasibility Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorDefactum, Central Denmark RegionRan2023 to 2025Enrolled260ConditionsAcute Coronary SyndromeArmsThe Heart Priority Programme
NCT07569497 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Co-design of a Physical Activity Maintenance Intervention for People With Stroke

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of UlsterRan2024 to 2026Enrolled34ConditionsStrokeArmsPhysical activity maintenance
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

157 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Adapting a mental health program for people with multiple myeloma and smouldering myeloma: a consumer-informed feasibility study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

97 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors.

Jemma HawkinsCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, UK. hawkinsj10@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1998-9547
Kim MaddenCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK.
Adam FletcherY Lab, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK.
Luke MidgleyCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, UK.
Aimee GrantCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK.
Gemma CoxPublic Health Wales, Cardiff, CF10 4BZ, UK.
Laurence MooreMedical Research Council /Chief Scientist Office Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G2 3QB, UK.
Rona CampbellCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Simon MurphyCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, UK.
Chris BonellLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
James WhiteCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, UK.

Funding

British Heart FoundationCancer Research UKChief Scientist Office SPHSU14Department of Health 12/3060/03Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/14Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/KO232331/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExisting guidance for developing public health interventions does not provide information for researchers about how to work with intervention providers to co-produce and prototype the content and delivery of new interventions prior to evaluation. The ASSIST + Frank study aimed to adapt an existing effective peer-led smoking prevention intervention (ASSIST), integrating new content from the UK drug education resource Talk to Frank ( www.talktofrank.com ) to co-produce two new school-based peer-led drug prevention interventions. A three-stage framework was tested to adapt and develop intervention content and delivery methods in collaboration with key stakeholders to facilitate implementation.

methodsThe three stages of the framework were: 1) Evidence review and stakeholder consultation; 2) Co-production; 3) Prototyping. During stage 1, six focus groups, 12 consultations, five interviews, and nine observations of intervention delivery were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g. Public Health Wales [PHW] ASSIST delivery team, teachers, school students, health professionals). During stage 2, an intervention development group consisting of members of the research team and the PHW ASSIST delivery team was established to adapt existing, and co-produce new, intervention activities. In stage 3, intervention training and content were iteratively prototyped using process data on fidelity and acceptability to key stakeholders. Stages 2 and 3 took the form of an action-research process involving a series of face-to-face meetings, email exchanges, observations, and training sessions.

resultsUtilising the three-stage framework, we co-produced and tested intervention content and delivery methods for the two interventions over a period of 18 months involving external partners. New and adapted intervention activities, as well as refinements in content, the format of delivery, timing and sequencing of activities, and training manuals resulted from this process. The involvement of intervention delivery staff, participants and teachers shaped the content and format of the interventions, as well as supporting rapid prototyping in context at the final stage.

conclusionsThis three-stage framework extends current guidance on intervention development by providing step-by-step instructions for co-producing and prototyping an intervention's content and delivery processes prior to piloting and formal evaluation. This framework enhances existing guidance and could be transferred to co-produce and prototype other public health interventions.

trial registrationISRCTN14415936 , registered retrospectively on 05 November 2014.

Indexed as

Models, OrganizationalPublic Health PracticeAdolescentFemaleFocus GroupsHealth EducationHumansMalePeer GroupSchool Health ServicesSmoking PreventionUnited KingdomAdolescenceCo-productionDrug preventionIntervention developmentPrototypingPublic healthTransdisciplinary action research

Identifiers

PMID28870192
PMCPMC5583990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.