Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33137099›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2020

Qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective: A systematic review and framework for public health evaluators.

Elizabeth McGill, Dalya Marks, Vanessa Er, Tarra Penney, Mark Petticrew, Matt Egan

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
15.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 132 citations in OpenAlex.

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

1 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth McGillDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3841-8467
Dalya MarksDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2475-3122
Vanessa ErDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0649-1846
Tarra PenneyMRC Epidemiology Unit, Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4889-9102
Mark PetticrewDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Matt EganDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4040-200X
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Department of Health PD-SPH-2015Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/7Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic health evaluation methods have been criticized for being overly reductionist and failing to generate suitable evidence for public health decision-making. A "complex systems approach" has been advocated to account for real world complexity. Qualitative methods may be well suited to understanding change in complex social environments, but guidance on applying a complex systems approach to inform qualitative research remains limited and underdeveloped. This systematic review aims to analyze published examples of process evaluations that utilize qualitative methods that involve a complex systems perspective and proposes a framework for qualitative complex system process evaluations. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a systematic search to identify complex system process evaluations that involve qualitative methods by searching electronic databases from January 1, 2014-September 30, 2019 (Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science), citation searching, and expert consultations. Process evaluations were included if they self-identified as taking a systems- or complexity-oriented approach, integrated qualitative methods, reported empirical findings, and evaluated public health interventions. Two reviewers independently assessed each study to identify concepts associated with the systems thinking and complexity science traditions. Twenty-one unique studies were identified evaluating a wide range of public health interventions in, for example, urban planning, sexual health, violence prevention, substance use, and community transformation. Evaluations were conducted in settings such as schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods in 13 different countries (9 high-income and 4 middle-income). All reported some utilization of complex systems concepts in the analysis of qualitative data. In 14 evaluations, the consideration of complex systems influenced intervention design, evaluation planning, or fieldwork. The identified studies used systems concepts to depict and describe a system at one point in time. Only 4 evaluations explicitly utilized a range of complexity concepts to assess changes within the system resulting from, or co-occurring with, intervention implementation over time. Limitations to our approach are including only English-language papers, reliance on study authors reporting their utilization of complex systems concepts, and subjective judgment from the reviewers relating to which concepts featured in each study.

conclusionThis study found no consensus on what bringing a complex systems perspective to public health process evaluations with qualitative methods looks like in practice and that many studies of this nature describe static systems at a single time point. We suggest future studies use a 2-phase framework for qualitative process evaluations that seek to assess changes over time from a complex systems perspective. The first phase involves producing a description of the system and identifying hypotheses about how the system may change in response to the intervention. The second phase involves following the pathway of emergent findings in an adaptive evaluation approach.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPublic HealthQualitative ResearchResearch DesignClinical Decision-MakingHumansSocial Environment

Identifiers

PMID33137099
PMCPMC7605618
OpenAlexW3096664890

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.