ReviewTrials2020
Designing process evaluations using case study to explore the context of complex interventions evaluated in trials.
Review in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01425502 (Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care: Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial to Test the Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Intervention in Reducing High Risk Prescribing of Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Antiplatelet Agents
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What do we want to get out of this? a critical interpretive synthesis of the value of process evaluations, with a practical planning framework.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- A mixed methods process evaluation of the implementation of a peer coaching intervention to improve the execution of preventive tasks by occupational physicians.BMC health services research · 2025Trial
- Pelvic floor muscle training for female urinary incontinence: development of a programme theory from a longitudinal qualitative case study.BMC women's health · 2024Trial
- How to embed qualitative research in trials: insights from the feasibility study of the SAFER trial programme.Trials · 2022Trial
- A Web-Based Self-Management Intervention for Return-to-Work Among Persons With Common Mental Disorders on Sick Leave: Case Study of mWorks.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- The Clinical Pathway Initiative: Identifying role relevant competencies in genomic pathways.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Implementing voluntary counselling and testing services among university students in Mozambique: a mixed methods process evaluation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Implementation of a national aging-in-place reform: a qualitative study exploring facilitators and barriers from the perspectives of employees in six Norwegian municipalities.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Exploration of Rapid Adaptation of First Contact Physiotherapy Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Three-Phase Sequential Mixed-Methods Study Protocol.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Improving measures of context in process evaluations: development and use of the Context Tracker tool.Trials · 2024Article
- [Perceptions of pediatric service professionals on the "Brief Anti-Alcohol Counseling in Pediatric Age" intervention in Asturias, Spain].Salud colectiva · 2024Article
- Implementation of the four habits model in intermediate care services in Norway: a process evaluation.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Article
- Understanding the processes underpinning IMPlementing IMProved Asthma self-management as RouTine (IMPTrials · 2024Article
- How a National Organization Works in Partnership With People Who Have Lived Experience in Mental Health Improvement Programs: Protocol for an Exploratory Case Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Process evaluation of the HIV+D intervention for integrating the management of depression in routine HIV care in Uganda.PLOS mental health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProcess evaluations are an important component of an effectiveness evaluation as they focus on understanding the relationship between interventions and context to explain how and why interventions work or fail, and whether they can be transferred to other settings and populations. However, historically, context has not been sufficiently explored and reported resulting in the poor uptake of trial results. Therefore, suitable methodologies are needed to guide the investigation of context. Case study is one appropriate methodology, but there is little guidance about what case study design can offer the study of context in trials. We address this gap in the literature by presenting a number of important considerations for process evaluation using a case study design. MAIN TEXT: In this paper, we define context, the relationship between complex interventions and context, and describe case study design methodology. A well-designed process evaluation using case study should consider the following core components: the purpose; definition of the intervention; the trial design, the case, the theories or logic models underpinning the intervention, the sampling approach and the conceptual or theoretical framework. We describe each of these in detail and highlight with examples from recently published process evaluations.
conclusionsThere are a number of approaches to process evaluation design in the literature; however, there is a paucity of research on what case study design can offer process evaluations. We argue that case study is one of the best research designs to underpin process evaluations, to capture the dynamic and complex relationship between intervention and context during implementation. We provide a comprehensive overview of the issues for process evaluation design to consider when using a case study design.
trial registrationDQIP - ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01425502 - OPAL - ISRCTN57746448.
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.