ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2022
Process evaluations undertaken alongside randomised controlled trials in the hospital setting: A scoping review.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Supporting translation of research evidence into practice-the use of Normalisation Process Theory to assess and inform implementation within randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2023Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Process-evaluation alongside a cluster-randomized trial examining the effectiveness of the 'SELF-program' on nurses' activity encouragement behavior.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Article
- From feedback to action: a process evaluation of implementation strategies for sepsis bundles in emergency departments.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Do process evaluations open up the 'black box' of implementation interventions in health care? A scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2025Article
- The POETIC (PrOcess Evaluation of Trials In Critical care) Framework: A Structured Approach for Designing and Conducting Process Evaluations in Critical Care Trials.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Process evaluation of the Belgian one-month-without alcohol campaign 'Tournée Minérale': a mixed method approach.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Process Evaluations for the Scale-Up of Complex Interventions - a Scoping Review.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is increasing recognition of the importance of undertaking process evaluations alongside implementation of health interventions by examining mechanisms of impact and contextual factors. However, a comprehensive synthesis of process evaluations undertaken alongside clinical trials in hospital settings is lacking. We undertook a scoping review to address this gap. Methods: This review was guided by the methodological framework for scoping studies. Studies were identified using four databases; Ovid Medline, EBSCO CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus. Two authors independently screened all titles and available abstracts, with a third author available to adjudicate. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they described a process evaluation undertaken alongside a randomised controlled trial in the hospital setting. Data were abstracted by one author and checked by two others and analysed both descriptively and using inductive content analysis. Results: Data were extracted from 30 articles reporting on 15 trials, most of which were cluster randomised trials (c-RTs) (n = 12). The most common data collection methods used in process evaluations were interviews, questionnaires or surveys, and records or logs. Data analysis revealed three themes relative to how authors: use process data to interpret, understand and explain trial outcomes; evaluate responses to the intervention; and consider the implementation context. Conclusions: Findings from this review demonstrate the complex nature of intervention implementation in the hospital setting. Overall, there is need for standardised reporting of process evaluations and more explicit descriptions of how authors use frameworks to guide their evaluation.
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.