Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36329485›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2022

Research and implementation interactions in a social accountability study: utilizing guidance for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions.

Joanna Paula Cordero, Vernon Mochache, Victoria Boydell, Mary Awelana Addah, Heather McMullen, Alice Monyo, Sigilbert Mrema, Dela Nai, Donat Shamba, Petrus S Steyn

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Joanna Paula CorderoUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development of Sexual and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP Research), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Vernon MochacheUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development of Sexual and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP Research), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Victoria BoydellSchool of Health and Social Care, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom.
Mary Awelana AddahGhana Integrity Initiative, Accra, Ghana.
Heather McMullenGlobal Health Unit, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK.
Alice MonyoSikika, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Sigilbert MremaDepartment of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Dela NaiPopulation Council Ghana, Accra, Ghana.
Donat ShambaDepartment of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Petrus S SteynUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development of Sexual and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP Research), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. steynp@who.int.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, researchers and evaluators have made efforts to identify and use appropriate and innovative research designs that account for the complexity in studying social accountability. The relationship between the researchers and those implementing the activities and how this impacts the study have received little attention. In this paper, we reflect on how we managed the relationship between researchers and implementers using the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on process evaluation of a complex intervention. MAIN BODY: The MRC guidance focuses on three areas of interaction between researchers and stakeholders involved in developing and delivering the intervention: (i) working with program developers and implementers; (ii) communication of emerging findings between researchers/evaluators and implementers; and (iii) overlapping roles of the intervention and research/evaluation. We summarize how the recommendations for each of the three areas were operationalized in the Community and Provider driven Social Accountability Intervention (CaPSAI) Project and provide reflections based on experience. We co-developed various tools, including standard operating procedures, contact lists, and manuals. Activities such as training sessions, regular calls, and meetings were also conducted to enable a good working relationship between the different partners.

conclusionsStudying social accountability requires the collaboration of multiple partners that need to be planned to ensure a good working relationship while safeguarding both the research and intervention implementation. The MRC guidance is a useful tool for making interaction issues explicit and establishing procedures. Planning procedures for dealing with research and implementers' interactions could be more comprehensive and better adapted to social accountability interventions if both researchers and implementers are involved. There is a need for social accountability research to include clear statements explaining the nature and types of relationships between researchers and implementers involved in the intervention.

Indexed as

Research PersonnelSocial ResponsibilityCommunicationHumansUnited KingdomComplex interventionMethodologyPracticeResearchSocial accountability

Identifiers

PMID36329485
PMCPMC9632007

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.