Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39525268›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care

Process Evaluations for the Scale-Up of Complex Interventions - a Scoping Review.

Lekha Rathod, Martin Heine, Daniel Boateng, Monika Martens, Josefien van Olmen, Grace Marie Ku, Kerstin Klipstein-Grobusch

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Lekha RathodJulius Global Health, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0488-7078
Martin HeineJulius Global Health, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4131-2863
Daniel BoatengJulius Global Health, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7568-7298
Monika MartensDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1432-0684
Josefien van OlmenDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9724-1887
Grace Marie KuDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4276-9104
Kerstin Klipstein-GrobuschJulius Global Health, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5462-9889

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Complex health interventions (CHIs) are common in (public) health and social care practice and policy. A process evaluation (PE) is an essential part of designing and testing CHIs and questions what is implemented, the mechanisms of change, and how context affects implementation. The scale-up of CHIs is challenging and heterogeneous, making the accompanying PE unique to the nature of the inquiry. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to describe the current practice of conducting PEs alongside or following the scale-up of CHI. Eight primary data sources were searched and data extracted on study characteristics, intervention characteristics, methods used in relation to the PE, and stakeholders included. Results: We reviewed 10,538 records and included 56 studies. Seven common thematic areas emerged in which CHIs were being scaled-up. The use of scale-up specific frameworks was rare, and common outcomes of the process evaluation focussed on barriers and facilitators in relation to the context; often obtained "once-off" using qualitative and quantitative data sources. Scale-up strategies reported were: supporting increased coverage, comprehensiveness, and institutionalisation; often simultaneously. Conclusion: Variations in the conduct of process evaluations during the scale-up phase of complex health interventions may reflect differences in context, conceptual challenges, the multi-dimensional nature of scale-up, and the point of engagement with the health care system (e.g., community-level). Ideally, a process evaluation is a recurrent continuous process, leveraging a systems-driven understanding and triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data, that takes place alongside the scale-up project to inform real-world adaptations of scale-up strategies and (untoward) mechanisms of impact when applicable.

Indexed as

complex health interventionsimplementation researchintegrated careprocess evaluationscale-up

Identifiers

PMID39525268
PMCPMC11546072

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.