Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34689742›Full record

ReviewBMC medical research methodology2021

Evaluating complex interventions in context: systematic, meta-narrative review of case study approaches.

Sara Paparini, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Jamie Murdoch, Judith Green, Mark Petticrew, Trisha Greenhalgh, Sara E Shaw

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  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

7 authors.

Sara PapariniNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Chrysanthi PapoutsiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Jamie MurdochSchool of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Judith GreenWellcome Centre for Cultures & Environments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Mark PetticrewPublic Health, Environments & Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2369-8088
Sara E ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. sara.shaw@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7014-4793

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S014632/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203109/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 221457/Z/20/ZWellcome Trust WT104830MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a growing need for methods that acknowledge and successfully capture the dynamic interaction between context and implementation of complex interventions. Case study research has the potential to provide such understanding, enabling in-depth investigation of the particularities of phenomena. However, there is limited guidance on how and when to best use different case study research approaches when evaluating complex interventions. This study aimed to review and synthesise the literature on case study research across relevant disciplines, and determine relevance to the study of contextual influences on complex interventions in health systems and public health research.

methodsSystematic meta-narrative review of the literature comprising (i) a scoping review of seminal texts (n = 60) on case study methodology and on context, complexity and interventions, (ii) detailed review of empirical literature on case study, context and complex interventions (n = 71), and (iii) identifying and reviewing 'hybrid papers' (n = 8) focused on the merits and challenges of case study in the evaluation of complex interventions.

resultsWe identified four broad (and to some extent overlapping) research traditions, all using case study in a slightly different way and with different goals: 1) developing and testing complex interventions in healthcare; 2) analysing change in organisations; 3) undertaking realist evaluations; 4) studying complex change naturalistically. Each tradition conceptualised context differently-respectively as the backdrop to, or factors impacting on, the intervention; sets of interacting conditions and relationships; circumstances triggering intervention mechanisms; and socially structured practices. Overall, these traditions drew on a small number of case study methodologists and disciplines. Few studies problematised the nature and boundaries of 'the case' and 'context' or considered the implications of such conceptualisations for methods and knowledge production.

conclusionsCase study research on complex interventions in healthcare draws on a number of different research traditions, each with different epistemological and methodological preferences. The approach used and consequences for knowledge produced often remains implicit. This has implications for how researchers, practitioners and decision makers understand, implement and evaluate complex interventions in different settings. Deeper engagement with case study research as a methodology is strongly recommended.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareResearch PersonnelHumansNarrationCase study methodsComplex interventionsContextEvaluationLiterature reviewMeta-narrativeMixed methods researchQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID34689742
PMCPMC8543916

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.