SynthesisPloS one2023
Integration of evidence into Theory of Change frameworks in the healthcare sector: A rapid systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Integration of evidence into Theory of Change frameworks in the healthcare sector: A rapid systematic review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Operationalizing the One Health approach at the intersection of research and development: a study protocol for the ELUZO project in Senegal and Burkina Faso.Global health action · 2026Article
- Article
- Correction: Integration of evidence into Theory of Change frameworks in the healthcare sector: A rapid systematic review.PloS one · 2025Article
- Designing an overview Theory of Change for a multi-component support community for people affected by rare dementia.Frontiers in dementia · 2025Article
- Implementing national care guidelines in local authorities in England and Wales: a theory-of-change.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTheory of Change (ToC) has become an established approach to design and evaluate interventions. While ToC should-in line with the growing international focus on evidence-informed health decision-making-consider explicit approaches to incorporate evidence, there is limited guidance on how this should be done. This rapid review aims to identify and synthesize the available literature on how to systematically use research evidence when developing or adapting ToCs in the health sector.
methodsA rapid review methodology using a systematic approach, was designed. Eight electronic databases were consulted to search for peer-reviewed and gray publications detailing tools, methods, and recommendations promoting the systematic integration of research evidence in ToCs. The included studies were compared, and the findings summarized qualitatively into themes to identify key principles, stages, and procedures, guiding the systematic integration of research evidence when developing or revising a ToC.
resultsThis review included 18 studies. The main sources from which evidence was retrieved in the ToC development process were institutional data, literature searches, and stakeholder consultation. There was a variety of ways of finding and using evidence in ToC. Firstly, the review provided an overview of existing definitions of ToC, methods applied in ToC development and the related ToC stages. Secondly, a typology of 7 stages relevant for evidence integration into ToCs was developed, outlining the types of evidence and research methods the included studies applied for each of the proposed stages.
conclusionThis rapid review adds to the existing literature in two ways. First, it provides an up-to-date and comprehensive review of the existing methods for incorporating evidence into ToC development in the health sector. Second, it offers a new typology guiding any future endeavors of incorporating evidence into ToCs.
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.