Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32981892›Full record

ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2021

How can we adapt complex population health interventions for new contexts? Progressing debates and research priorities.

Rhiannon Emily Evans, Graham Moore, Ani Movsisyan, Eva Rehfuess, ADAPT Panel, ADAPT Panel comprises of Laura Arnold

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Preventing Youth Crime and Violence: Intervention and Evaluation Issues.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The economics of adaptations to evidence-based practices.Implementation science communications · 2022
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rhiannon Emily EvansDECIPHer, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK EvansRE8@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1156-8633
Graham MooreDECIPHer, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Ani MovsisyanInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Eva RehfuessInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
ADAPT Panel
ADAPT Panel comprises of Laura Arnold
Cardiff University · GBZimmer Biomet (Germany) · DE

Funding

British Heart Foundation MR/KO232331/1Cancer Research UKChief Scientist Office SPHSU13Chief Scientist Office SPHSU17Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017-13Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/15Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1Medical Research Council MR/K023241/1Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/R013357/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe UK Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research have funded the ADAPT study (2018-2020), to develop methodological guidance for the adaptation of complex population health interventions for new contexts. While there have been advances in frameworks, there are key theoretical and methodological debates to progress. The ADAPT study convened a panel meeting to identify and enrich these debates. This paper presents the panel's discussions and suggests directions for future research.

methodsSixteen researchers and one policymaker convened for a 1-day meeting in July 2019. The aim was to reflect on emerging study findings (systematic review of adaptation guidance; scoping review of case examples; and qualitative interviews with funders, journal editors, researchers and policymakers), progress theoretical and methodological debates, and consider where innovation may be required to address research gaps. DISCUSSION: Despite the proliferation of adaptation frameworks, questions remain over the definition of basic concepts (eg, adaptation). The rationale for adaptation, which often focuses on differences between contexts, may lead to adaptation hyperactivity. Equal emphasis should be placed on similarities. Decision-making about intervention modification currently privileges the concept of 'core components', and work is needed to progress the use and operationalisation of 'functional fidelity'. Language and methods must advance to ensure meaningful engagement with diverse stakeholders in adaptation processes. Further guidance is required to assess the extent of re-evaluation required in the new context. A better understanding of different theoretical perspectives, notably complex systems thinking, implementation science and realist evaluation may help in enhancing research on adaptation.

Indexed as

Population HealthHumansResearchGeographyHealth policyOutcome research evaluationPublic healthResearch methods

Identifiers

PMID32981892
PMCPMC7788480
OpenAlexW3089225416

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.