Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38110918›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Mobilising context as complex and dynamic in evaluations of complex health interventions.

Jamie Murdoch, Sara Paparini, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Hannah James, Trisha Greenhalgh, Sara E Shaw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Causal Loop Diagrams of Food Systems, Diet, and Obesity: A Scoping Review of Methods, Contextual Factors, and Outcomes.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Jamie MurdochSchool of Life Course and Population Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. jamie.murdoch@kcl.ac.uk.
Sara PapariniWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Chrysanthi PapoutsiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Hannah JamesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sara E ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S014632/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT104830MA; 221457/Z/20/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe relationship between healthcare interventions and context is widely conceived as involving complex and dynamic interactions over time. However, evaluations of complex health interventions frequently fail to mobilise such complexity, reporting context and interventions as reified and demarcated categories. This raises questions about practices shaping knowledge about context, with implications for who and what we make visible in our research. Viewed through the lens of case study research, we draw on data collected for the Triple C study (focused on Case study, Context and Complex interventions), to critique these practices, and call for system-wide changes in how notions of context are operationalised in evaluations of complex health interventions.

methodsThe Triple C study was funded by the Medical Research Council to develop case study guidance and reporting principles taking account of context and complexity. As part of this study, a one-day workshop with 58 participants and nine interviews were conducted with those involved in researching, evaluating, publishing, funding and developing policy and practice from case study research. Discussions focused on how to conceptualise and operationalise context within case study evaluations of complex health interventions. Analysis focused on different constructions and connections of context in relation to complex interventions and the wider social forces structuring participant's accounts.

resultsWe found knowledge-making practices about context shaped by epistemic and political forces, manifesting as: tensions between articulating complexity and clarity of description; ontological (in)coherence between conceptualisations of context and methods used; and reified versions of context being privileged when communicating with funders, journals, policymakers and publics.

conclusionWe argue that evaluations of complex health interventions urgently requires wide-scale critical reflection on how context is mobilised - by funders, health services researchers, journal editors and policymakers. Connecting with how scholars approach complexity and context across disciplines provides opportunities for creatively expanding the field in which health evaluations are conducted, enabling a critical standpoint to long-established traditions and opening up possibilities for innovating the design of evaluations of complex health interventions.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth ServicesHumansCase study researchComplex interventionsComplexityComplex systemsContextHealth systemsPublic health

Identifiers

PMID38110918
PMCPMC10726627

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.