Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37179308›Full record

ReviewBMC medical research methodology2023

TRIPLE C reporting principles for case study evaluations of the role of context in complex interventions.

Sara E Shaw, Sara Paparini, Jamie Murdoch, Judith Green, Trisha Greenhalgh, Benjamin Hanckel, Hannah M James, Mark Petticrew, Gary W Wood, Chrysanthi Papoutsi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Sara E ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. sara.shaw@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Sara PapariniWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Jamie MurdochSchool of Life Course and Population Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Judith GreenWellcome Centre for Cultures & Environments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Benjamin HanckelInstitute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
Hannah M JamesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Mark PetticrewDepartment of Public Health, Environments & Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Gary W WoodIndependent Research Consultant, Birmingham, UK.
Chrysanthi PapoutsiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S014632/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 221457/Z/20/ZWellcome Trust WT104830MAWellcome Trust WT203109/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidance and reporting principles such as CONSORT (for randomised trials) and PRISMA (for systematic reviews) have greatly improved the reporting, discoverability, transparency and consistency of published research. We sought to develop similar guidance for case study evaluations undertaken to explore the influence of context on the processes and outcomes of complex interventions.

methodsA range of experts were recruited to an online Delphi panel, sampling for maximum diversity in disciplines (e.g. public health, health services research, organisational studies), settings (e.g. country), and sectors (e.g. academic, policy, third sector). To inform panel deliberations, we prepared background materials based on: [a] a systematic meta-narrative review of empirical and methodological literatures on case study, context and complex interventions; [b] the collective experience of a network of health systems and public health researchers; and [c] the established RAMESES II standards (which cover one kind of case study). We developed a list of topics and issues based on these sources and encouraged panel members to provide free text comments. Their feedback informed development of a set of items in the form of questions for potential inclusion in the reporting principles. We circulated these by email, asking panel members to rank each potential item twice (for relevance and validity) on a 7-point Likert scale. This sequence was repeated twice.

resultsWe recruited 51 panel members from 50 organisations across 12 countries, who brought experience of a range of case study research methods and applications. 26 completed all three Delphi rounds, reaching over 80% consensus on 16 items covering title, abstract, definitions of terms, philosophical assumptions, research question(s), rationale, how context and complexity relates to the intervention, ethical approval, empirical methods, findings, use of theory, generalisability and transferability, researcher perspective and influence, conclusions and recommendations, and funding and conflicts of interest.

conclusionThe 'Triple C' (Case study, Context, Complex interventions) reporting principles recognise that case studies are undertaken in different ways for different purposes and based on different philosophical assumptions. They are designed to be enabling rather than prescriptive, and to make case study evaluation reporting on context and complex health interventions more comprehensive, accessible and useable.

Indexed as

PublicationsResearch DesignConsensusHealth Services ResearchHumansResearch PersonnelCase study researchComplex interventionsContextDelphi approachHealth systemsPublic healthreporting principles

Identifiers

PMID37179308
PMCPMC10182844

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.