Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31340828›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries.

Felix Limbani, Jane Goudge, Rohina Joshi, Marion A Maar, J Jaime Miranda, Brian Oldenburg, Gary Parker, Maria Amalia Pesantes, Michaela A Riddell, Abdul Salam and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Developing an implementation fidelity measure for a family healthy weight program.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

18 authors.

Felix LimbaniCentre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 27 St Andrews Rd Parktown, Private Bag X3 Wits, Johannesburg, 2050, South Africa. limbanif@yahoo.co.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0176-7011
Jane GoudgeCentre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 27 St Andrews Rd Parktown, Private Bag X3 Wits, Johannesburg, 2050, South Africa.
Rohina JoshiThe George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Marion A MaarFaculty of Medicine, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, Canada.
J Jaime MirandaCRONICAS Center of Excellence in Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru.
Brian OldenburgMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Gary ParkerInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Maria Amalia PesantesCRONICAS Center of Excellence in Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru.
Michaela A RiddellDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abdul SalamThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Hyderabad, India.
Kathy TrieuThe George Institute for Global Health, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.
Amanda G ThriftDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Josefien Van OlmenDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Rajesh VedanthanNew York University School of Medicine, New York, USA.
Ruth WebsterThe George Institute for Global Health, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.
Karen YeatesFaculty of Health Sciences, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Jacqui WebsterThe George Institute for Global Health, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.
Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases, Process Evaluation Working Group

Funding

Optimizing Linkage and Retention to Hypertension Care in Rural KenyaU01HL114200 · NHLBI · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI FUSTER, VALENTIN · 2012 to 2016
$2.1M
Launching a salt substitute to reduce blood pressure at the population level-PeruU01HL114180 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI GILMAN, ROBERT H · 2012 to 2016
$2.0M
CIHR 120389Medical Research Council MR/M016501/1NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL114180NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL114200
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProcess evaluation is increasingly recognized as an important component of effective implementation research and yet, there has been surprisingly little work to understand what constitutes best practice. Researchers use different methodologies describing causal pathways and understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in diverse contexts and settings. We report on challenges and lessons learned from undertaking process evaluation of seven hypertension intervention trials funded through the Global Alliance of Chronic Diseases (GACD).

methodsPreliminary data collected from the GACD hypertension teams in 2015 were used to inform a template for data collection. Case study themes included: (1) description of the intervention, (2) objectives of the process evaluation, (3) methods including theoretical basis, (4) main findings of the study and the process evaluation, (5) implications for the project, policy and research practice and (6) lessons for future process evaluations. The information was summarized and reported descriptively and narratively and key lessons were identified.

resultsThe case studies were from low- and middle-income countries and Indigenous communities in Canada. They were implementation research projects with intervention arm. Six theoretical approaches were used but most comprised of mixed-methods approaches. Each of the process evaluations generated findings on whether interventions were implemented with fidelity, the extent of capacity building, contextual factors and the extent to which relationships between researchers and community impacted on intervention implementation. The most important learning was that although process evaluation is time consuming, it enhances understanding of factors affecting implementation of complex interventions. The research highlighted the need to initiate process evaluations early on in the project, to help guide design of the intervention; and the importance of effective communication between researchers responsible for trial implementation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation.

conclusionThis research demonstrates the important role of process evaluation in understanding implementation process of complex interventions. This can help to highlight a broad range of system requirements such as new policies and capacity building to support implementation. Process evaluation is crucial in understanding contextual factors that may impact intervention implementation which is important in considering whether or not the intervention can be translated to other contexts.

Indexed as

Implementation ScienceAdultCanadaClinical Trials as TopicDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedProcess Assessment, Health CareComplex interventionsHypertensionImplementation scienceLow and middle-income countriesMixed-methodsProcess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID31340828
PMCPMC6651979

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.