ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018
Assessing the applicability of public health intervention evaluations from one setting to another: a methodological study of the usability and usefulness of assessment tools and frameworks.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Interventions to increase linkage to care and adherence to treatment for hepatitis C among people who inject drugs: A systematic review and practical considerations from an expert panel consultation.The International journal on drug policy · 2022Pooled it
- Adapting evidence-informed complex population health interventions for new contexts: a systematic review of guidance.Implementation science : IS · 2019Pooled it
- Health professional-delivered obesity prevention interventions during the first 1,000 days: A systematic review of external validity reporting.HRB open research · 2019Pooled it
- Making every contact count for adult patients in healthcare settings: a scoping review of implementation contexts, methods, and levels of evidence.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Daily SARS-CoV-2 testing after travel-related close contact notifications during elite sporting events hosted in the UK: a longitudinal study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Developing and implementing a nurse-delivered and a web-based dyadic psychoeducational program for people with advanced cancer and their family caregivers: sharing experiences from a three-arm international randomized controlled trial (DIAdIC).Palliative care and social practice · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review of Tools to Assess Coeliac Disease-Related Knowledge.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- A qualitative study of a recovery capital assessment tool in alcohol and drug treatment facilities: Perspectives from social work professionals.Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2024Article
- Towards successful implementation of public health research into practice: Experiences and lessons learned from EDUCATE.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Article
- Characteristics of the sources, evaluation, and grading of the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews in public health: A methodological study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- A Framework for Applying Global Learning to Improve Primary Health Care in the United States.Annals of global health · 2023Article
- User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Program adaptation by health departments.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Appraising clinical applicability of studies: mapping and synthesis of current frameworks, and proposal of the FrACAS framework and VICORT checklist.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Cultural adaptation of two school-based smoking prevention programs in Bogotá, Colombia.Translational behavioral medicine · 2021Article
- Implementation of evidence-based health promotion and disease prevention interventions: theoretical and practical implications of the concept of transferability for decision-making and the transfer process.Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2021Review
- How can we adapt complex population health interventions for new contexts? Progressing debates and research priorities.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2021Article
- When assessing generalisability, focusing on differences in population or setting alone is insufficient.Trials · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPublic health interventions can be complicated, complex and context dependent, making the assessment of applicability challenging. Nevertheless, for them to be of use beyond the original study setting, they need to be generalisable to other settings and, crucially, research users need to be able to identify to which contexts it may be applicable. There are many tools with set criteria for assessing generalisability/applicability, yet few seem to be widely used and there is no consensus on which should be used, or when. This methodological study aimed to test these tools to assess how easy they were to use and how useful they appeared to be.
methodsWe identified tools from an existing review and an update of its search. References were screened on pre-specified criteria. Included tools were tested by using them to assess the applicability of a Swedish weight management intervention to the English context. Researcher assessments and reflections on the usability and utility of the tools were gathered using a standard pro-forma.
resultsEleven tools were included. Their length, content, style and time required to complete varied. No tool was considered ideal for assessing applicability. Their limitations included unrealistic criteria (requiring unavailable information), a focus on implementation to the neglect of transferability (i.e. little focus on potential effectiveness in the new setting), overly broad criteria (associated with low reliability), and a lack of an explicit focus on how interventions worked (i.e. their mechanisms of action).
conclusionTools presenting criteria ready to be used may not be the best method for applicability assessments. They are likely to be either too long or incomplete, too focused on differences and fail to address elements that matter for the specific topic of interest. It is time to progress from developing lists of set criteria that are not widely used in the literature, to creating a new approach to applicability assessment. Focusing on mechanisms of action, rather than solely on characteristics, could be a useful approach, and one that remains underutilised in current tools. New approaches to assessing generalisability that evolve away from checklist style assessments need to be developed, tested, reported and discussed.
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.