Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35231097›Full record

ArticleAge and ageing2022

Contextual factors influencing complex intervention research processes in care homes: a systematic review and framework synthesis.

Guy Peryer, Sarah Kelly, Jessica Blake, Jennifer K Burton, Lisa Irvine, Andy Cowan, Gizdem Akdur, Anne Killett, Sarah L Brand, Massirfufulay Kpehe Musa and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Age and ageing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Public Involvement to Enhance Care Home Research; Collaboration on a Minimum Data Set for Care Homes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Guy PeryerSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
Sarah KellyCambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge, East Forvie Site, Cambridge CB2 0SZ, UK.
Jessica BlakeCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Jennifer K BurtonInstitute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, New Lister Building, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow G31 2ER, UK.
Lisa IrvineCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Andy CowanCambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge, East Forvie Site, Cambridge CB2 0SZ, UK.
Gizdem AkdurCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Anne KillettSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
Sarah L BrandSt Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, University of Exeter, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK.
Massirfufulay Kpehe MusaCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Julienne MeyerNational Care Forum/Care for Older People, School of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, City, University of London, London, UK.
Adam L GordonSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Claire GoodmanNIHR Applied Research Collaboration, East of England, England, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office PCL/21/01Department of Health NIHR127234
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCare homes are complex settings to undertake intervention research. Barriers to research implementation processes can threaten studies' validity, reducing the value to residents, staff, researchers and funders. We aimed to (i) identify and categorise contextual factors that may mediate outcomes of complex intervention studies in care homes and (ii) provide recommendations to minimise the risk of expensive research implementation failures.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review using a framework synthesis approach viewed through a complex adaptive systems lens. We searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ASSIA databases and grey literature. We sought process evaluations of care home complex interventions published in English. Narrative data were indexed under 28 context domains. We performed an inductive thematic analysis across the context domains.

resultsWe included 33 process evaluations conducted in high-income countries, published between 2005 and 2019. Framework synthesis identified barriers to implementation that were more common at the task and organisational level. Inductive thematic analysis identified (i) avoiding procedural drift and (ii) participatory action and learning as key priorities for research teams. Research team recommendations include advice for protocol design and care home engagement. Care home team recommendations focus on internal resources and team dynamics. Collaborative recommendations apply to care homes' individual context and the importance of maintaining positive working relationships. DISCUSSION: Researchers planning and undertaking research with care homes need a sensitive appreciation of the complex care home context. Study implementation is most effective where an intervention is co-produced, with agreed purpose and adequate resources to incorporate within existing routines and care practices.

Indexed as

complexitycontexthuman factorsnursing homeolder peopleprocess evaluationqualitative

Identifiers

PMID35231097
PMCPMC8887840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.