Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34590577›Full record

ArticleHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2021

Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update.

Kathryn Skivington, Lynsay Matthews, Sharon Anne Simpson, Peter Craig, Janis Baird, Jane M Blazeby, Kathleen Anne Boyd, Neil Craig, David P French, Emma McIntosh and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 295 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
295citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

295 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Determinants of healthy lifestyle behaviours in colorectal cancer survivors: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

235 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

14 authors.

Kathryn SkivingtonMedical Research Council/Chief Scientist Office Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3571-1561
Lynsay MatthewsMedical Research Council/Chief Scientist Office Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5760-1080
Sharon Anne SimpsonMedical Research Council/Chief Scientist Office Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6219-1768
Peter CraigMedical Research Council/Chief Scientist Office Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7653-5832
Janis BairdMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4039-4361
Jane M BlazebyMedical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research and Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3354-3330
Kathleen Anne BoydHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9764-0113
Neil CraigPublic Health Scotland, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7370-5541
David P FrenchManchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7663-7804
Emma McIntoshHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6340-3083
Mark PetticrewLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6378-5517
Jo Rycroft-MaloneFaculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3858-5625
Martin WhiteMedical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1861-6757
Laurence MooreMedical Research Council/Chief Scientist Office Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2182-823X

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU14Chief Scientist Office SPHSU16Chief Scientist Office SPHSU17Chief Scientist Office SPHSU18Department of Health IS-BRC-1215-20007Department of Health NIHR200174Medical Research Council MC_PC_13027Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/4Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/11Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/14Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods.

methodsThere were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments.

resultsKey changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six 'core elements' that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout. LIMITATIONS: The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development.

conclusionsThis new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as 'events in systems' that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers. FUTURE WORK: We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources.

fundingThis project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).

Indexed as

Referral and ConsultationForecastingHumansCOMPLEX INTERVENTIONCOMPLEXITYCONTEXTDEVELOPMENTEVALUATIONFEASIBILITYIMPLEMENTATIONINTERVENTION REFINEMENTPROGRAMME THEORYSTAKEHOLDERSSYSTEMSUNCERTAINTIES

Identifiers

PMID34590577
PMCPMC7614019

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.