Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31064323›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019

Which design to evaluate complex interventions? Toward a methodological framework through a systematic review.

Laetitia Minary, Justine Trompette, Joëlle Kivits, Linda Cambon, Cyril Tarquinio, François Alla

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Laetitia MinaryUniversity of Lorraine, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France.
Justine TrompetteUniversity of Lorraine, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France.
Joëlle KivitsUniversity of Lorraine, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France.
Linda CambonUniversity of Bordeaux, INSERM, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, Bordeaux, France.
Cyril TarquinioUniversity of Lorraine, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France.
François AllaUniversity of Bordeaux, INSERM, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, Bordeaux, France. francois.alla@u-bordeaux.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-5793-7190

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvaluation of complex interventions (CI) is challenging for health researchers and requires innovative approaches. The objective of this work is to present the main methods used to evaluate CI.

methodsA systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted to identify methods used for the evaluation of CI. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed databases for articles including an evaluation or a pilot study of a complex intervention, published in a ten-year period. Key-words of this research were ("complex intervention*" AND "evaluation").

resultsAmong 445 identified articles, 100 research results or protocols were included. Among them, 5 presented 2 different types of design in the same publication, thus our work included 105 designs. Individual randomized controlled trials (IRCT) represented 21.9% (n = 23) of evaluation designs, randomized clinical trials adaptations 44.8% (n = 47), quasi -experimental designs and cohort study 19.0% (n = 20), realist evaluation 6.7% (n = 7) and other cases studies and other approaches 8.6% (n = 9). A process/mechanisms analysis was included in 80% (n = 84) of these designs.

conclusionA range of methods can be used successively or combined at various steps of the evaluation approach. A framework is proposed to situate each of the designs with respect to evaluation questions. The growing interest of researchers in alternative methods and the development of their use must be accompanied by conceptual and methodological research in order to more clearly define their principles of use.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchSystematic Reviews as TopicEvaluation Studies as TopicGuidelines as TopicHumansPilot ProjectsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignHealth behaviourPublic healthResearch methodsStudy design

Identifiers

PMID31064323
PMCPMC6505260

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.