Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33246496›Full record

ReviewTrials2020

Designing process evaluations using case study to explore the context of complex interventions evaluated in trials.

Aileen Grant, Carol Bugge, Mary Wells

Registry-linked trialAbstract readLetterReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT01425502 nacompletednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of DundeeRan2012 to 2014Enrolled33ConditionsDrug SafetyArmsDQIP Intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  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
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

3 authors.

Aileen GrantSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedic Practice, Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 7QB, UK. a.grant17@rgu.ac.uk.
Carol BuggeFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Pathfoot Building, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK.
Mary WellsDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Campus, London, W6 8RP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Process Assessment, Health CareCausalityHumansCase study designContextProcess evaluationTrials

Identifiers

PMID33246496
PMCPMC7694311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.