ArticleBMJ public health2024
Using systems mapping within the process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of the ACE active ageing programme in England and Wales.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: System mapping has mainly been used to develop theories and understanding of complex systems; to hypothesise how an intervention might work in a complex system or to inform intervention development. There are a few examples of the use of system mapping as part of process evaluation. In this paper, we describe an innovative approach to using system mapping as part of the process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of the Active, Connected, Engaged (ACE) community-based active ageing programme. Method: Ten participatory workshops were held across three of the ACE sites (Cardiff, Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester, UK). These involved over 100 participants, volunteers and stakeholders (from National Health Service, statutory and voluntary sectors). Their aim was to gather area-specific information on participants' barriers and facilitators to physical activity and the needs of peer volunteers and service providers; and create 'baseline' system maps before the launch of the programme in the three areas of ACE delivery. Results: System maps were produced showing the main outcome (physical activity) and the interactions between the key motivators and barriers described by older people, as well as ideas from stakeholders and volunteers about how these barriers can be addressed. Findings led to refinements to ACE intervention processes and the study's logic model. Conclusions: System mapping helped to refine the ACE processes and fine-tune the logic model. The value of this approach will increase in the next phase when it will be used to explore any changes to the physical activity system including changes to stakeholders' ways of working and collaborating to tackle barriers to activity following the completion of the ACE trial. Trial registration number: ISRCTN17660493.
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.