Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33546707›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2021

Adapting evidence-informed population health interventions for new contexts: a scoping review of current practice.

A Movsisyan, L Arnold, L Copeland, R Evans, H Littlecott, G Moore, A O'Cathain, L Pfadenhauer, J Segrott, E Rehfuess

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Cultural adaptations of obesity-related behavioral prevention interventions in early childhood: A systematic review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Preventing Youth Crime and Violence: Intervention and Evaluation Issues.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Engaging Chinese and Korean American communities in dementia research: A journey of inclusivity and partnership.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    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

10 authors.

A MovsisyanInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377, Munich, Germany. ani.movsisyan@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0258-8912
L ArnoldInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377, Munich, Germany.
L CopelandCentre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, Wales, UK.
R EvansCentre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, Wales, UK.
H LittlecottCentre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, Wales, UK.
G MooreCentre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, Wales, UK.
A O'CathainSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
L PfadenhauerInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377, Munich, Germany.
J SegrottCentre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, Wales, UK.
E RehfuessInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377, Munich, Germany.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25350Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1Medical Research Council MR/R013357/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementing evidence-informed population health interventions in new contexts often requires adaptations. While the need to adapt interventions to better fit new contexts is recognised, uncertainties remain regarding why and when to adapt (or not), and how to assess the benefits (or not) of adaptation. The ADAPT Study aims to develop comprehensive guidance on adaptation. This scoping review informs guidance development by mapping and exploring how adaptation has been undertaken in practice, in public health and health services research.

methodsWe searched seven databases from January 2000 and October 2018 to identify eligible studies for this scoping review and a related systematic review of adaptation guidance. We mapped the studies of adaptation by coding data from all eligible studies describing the methods, contexts, and interventions considered for adaptation. From this map, we selected a sample of studies for in-depth examination. Two reviewers extracted data independently into seven categories: description, key concepts, types, rationale, processes, evaluation methods, evaluation justification, and accounts of failures and successes.

resultsWe retrieved 6694 unique records. From 429 records screened at full text, we identified 298 eligible studies for mapping and selected 28 studies for in-depth examination. The majority of studies in our map focused on micro- (i.e., individual-) level interventions (84%), related to transferring an intervention to a new population group within the same country (62%) and did not report using guidance (73%). Studies covered a range of topic areas, including health behaviour (24%), mental health (19%), sexual health (16%), and parenting and family-centred interventions (15%). Our in-depth analysis showed that adaptation is seen to save costs and time relative to developing a new intervention, and to enhance contextual relevance and cultural compatibility. It commonly follows a structured process and involves stakeholders to help with decisions on what to adapt, when, and how.

conclusionsAdaptation has been undertaken on a range of health topics and largely in line with existing guidance. Significant gaps relate to adaptation of macro- (e.g., national-) level interventions, consideration of programme theories, mechanisms and contexts (i.e., a functional view of interventions), nuances around stakeholder involvement, and evaluation of the adapted interventions. Registration Open Science Framework, 2019, osf.io/udzma.

Indexed as

Population HealthDelivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchHumansAdaptationComplex interventionsComplexityContextEvaluationEvidence-basedEvidence-informedImplementationPopulation healthSystems thinking

Identifiers

PMID33546707
PMCPMC7863549

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.