Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34625119›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2021

Theoretical approaches to process evaluations of complex interventions in health care: a systematic scoping review protocol.

Tina Quasdorf, Lauren Clack, Franziska Laporte Uribe, Daniela Holle, Martin Berwig, Daniel Purwins, Marie-Therese Schultes, Martina Roes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Why Are Enrichment Practices in Zoos Difficult to Implement Effectively?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    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

8 authors.

Tina QuasdorfDeutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen e.V. (DZNE), Witten, Germany. tina.quasdorf@dzne.de.ORCID 0000-0003-0605-5056
Lauren ClackUniversity of Zurich, Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care, Zurich, Switzerland.
Franziska Laporte UribeDeutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen e.V. (DZNE), Witten, Germany.
Daniela HolleDepartment für Pflegewissenschaft, Hochschule für Gesundheit, Bochum, Germany.
Martin BerwigDeutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen e.V. (DZNE), Witten, Germany.
Daniel PurwinsDeutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen e.V. (DZNE), Witten, Germany.
Marie-Therese SchultesUniversity of Zurich, Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care, Zurich, Switzerland.
Martina RoesDeutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen e.V. (DZNE), Witten, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComplex interventions in health care are characterized by multiple interacting components as well as by numerous nonlinear interactions with the social systems within which they are being implemented. The process of developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions is therefore challenging. Established guidance such as the MRC (Medical Research Council) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions refers to process evaluations as an integral part of the development of complex evidence-based interventions. Even though the need for process evaluations is recognized, the realization of such approaches is challenging because methodological instruction is sparse, and the phenomenon of interest is complex. A number of theoretical approaches indicating how to conduct process evaluations of complex interventions in health care exist, but a systematic and comprehensive overview of these is missing. Thus, the objective of the systematic scoping review described herein is to provide an overview and analysis of theoretical approaches suitable for the planning and conducting of process evaluations.

methodsThe design and conduct of this review will follow the procedures of a systematic scoping review. The search strategy will be developed following the BeHEMoTh (Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) template which has been conceptualized for structured reviews of theory. The systematic search of the MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL (via EBSCO) and PsycInfo (via EBSCO) electronic databases will be complemented by "hand searching" techniques. Study selection, data extraction, and data analysis will be performed by tandems of two researchers independently of each other. Divergent decisions and judgements between the two researchers will be discussed by the whole review team. DISCUSSION: The findings from this scoping review will provide an overview and comparison of theoretical approaches suitable for process evaluations of complex interventions in health care. The review results will support researchers in choosing the theoretical approach that best fits the respective focus of their process evaluation study. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This study has been registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under registration number CRD42020211732 .

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareProcess Assessment, Health CareHealth FacilitiesHumansScoping Reviews as TopicComplex interventionFrameworksHealth careImplementationModelsProcess evaluationSystematic scoping reviewTheory

Identifiers

PMID34625119
PMCPMC8499466

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.