SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2022
What do we want to get out of this? a critical interpretive synthesis of the value of process evaluations, with a practical planning framework.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Caregiver App Use and Child Behavioral Adherence in Relation to Obesity-Related Outcomes in an mHealth App-Assisted Childhood Obesity Intervention: Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Trial
- Process evaluation of a breastfeeding support intervention to promote exclusive breastfeeding and reduce social inequity: a mixed-methods study in a cluster-randomised trial.International journal for equity in health · 2024Trial
- A school-level randomized preliminary study of in-classroom physical activity breaks among fifth graders.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026Article
- Evaluating the implementation of integrated knowledge translation in a multi-country research consortium in Sub-Saharan Africa - a mixed methods comparative case study.Implementation science : IS · 2026Article
- Experiences of Using a Digital Text Messaging Intervention to Support Oral Medication Adherence for People Living With Type 2 Diabetes: Qualitative Process Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Process evaluation of an HIV stigma reduction intervention among young people in northern Uganda.Health promotion international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProcess evaluations aim to understand how complex interventions bring about outcomes by examining intervention mechanisms, implementation, and context. While much attention has been paid to the methodology of process evaluations in health research, the value of process evaluations has received less critical attention. We aimed to unpack how value is conceptualised in process evaluations by identifying and critically analysing 1) how process evaluations may create value and 2) what kind of value they may create.
methodsWe systematically searched for and identified published literature on process evaluation, including guidance, opinion pieces, primary research, reviews, and discussion of methodological and practical issues. We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis and developed a practical planning framework.
resultsWe identified and included 147 literature items. From these we determined three ways in which process evaluations may create value or negative consequences: 1) through the socio-technical processes of 'doing' the process evaluation, 2) through the features/qualities of process evaluation knowledge, and 3) through using process evaluation knowledge. We identified 15 value themes. We also found that value varies according to the characteristics of individual process evaluations, and is subjective and context dependent.
conclusionThe concept of value in process evaluations is complex and multi-faceted. Stakeholders in different contexts may have very different expectations of process evaluations and the value that can and should be obtained from them. We propose a planning framework to support an open and transparent process to plan and create value from process evaluations and negotiate trade-offs. This will support the development of joint solutions and, ultimately, generate more value from process evaluations to all.
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.