ArticleSystematic reviews2021
Theoretical approaches to process evaluations of complex interventions in health care: a systematic scoping review protocol.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Inside the Black Box of Deliberate Practice: How do Coaches Coach to Improve Trauma Triage.The Journal of surgical research · 2024Trial
- Article
- Process Evaluation of a Problem-Solving Intervention with Workplace Involvement for Employees on Sickness Absence Due to Common Mental Disorders in Swedish Primary Health Care.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Realist evaluation of Belgian pilot projects for paediatric transmural care: protocol for a mixed methods study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Implementing a gerontological nursing competencies programme in aged care: Participant experiences.International nursing review · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to guideline for the management of pediatric off-label use of drugs in China: a qualitative descriptive study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Tailored implementation of the FICUS multicomponent family support intervention in adult intensive care units: findings from a mixed methods contextual analysis.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Implementation of dementia care management in routine care (RoutineDeCM): a study protocol for process evaluation.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Fidelity, Feasibility and Adaptation of a Family Planning Intervention for Young Women in Zimbabwe: Provider Perspectives and Experiences.Global implementation research and applications · 2023Article
- Why Are Enrichment Practices in Zoos Difficult to Implement Effectively?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.