Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40855437›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

Experimental designs used for optimising the effects of health interventions and implementation strategies: a scoping review.

Erin Nolan, Luke Wolfenden, Taylor Benn, Elizabeth Holliday, Daniel Barker, Christopher Oldmeadow, Alix Hall

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Combination Pharmacology for ALS: A Mechanistic Rationale.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Erin NolanSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. Erin.nolan@hmri.org.au.
Luke WolfendenSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Taylor BennSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Elizabeth HollidaySchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Daniel BarkerSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Christopher OldmeadowSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Alix HallSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council G1901360NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence APP1153479NSW Cardiovascular Research Capacity Program H20/28248University of Newcastle Australia 3145140
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptimisation is the iterative process to improve a health intervention or implementation strategy within resource constraints. This review aimed to identify which study designs are being used to evaluate the optimisation of health interventions and implementation strategies, and whether they differ by optimisation target. This review identifies possible strategies to improve future optimisation trials.

methodsA scoping review of the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source databases was undertaken. The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry were also searched for relevant trials. Data were extracted by one reviewer for 64% of studies, and by two reviewers for 36% of studies. Data extracted included research designs, optimisation target and constraints, and whether an optimisation framework and criteria for optimisation success was used. The frequency of optimisation constraints was tabulated by experimental design and optimisation target.

results183 studies aimed to optimise an intervention (n = 142) or implementation strategy (n = 39) or both (n = 2). Factorial designs were the most common design used to evaluate optimisation of an intervention (41%), whereas pre-post designs were the most common for implementation strategies (46%). Optimisation success was defined in 11% of trials and 24% of trials used a framework for optimisation.

conclusionsThis review characterises the design features of trials aiming to optimise health interventions or implementation strategies. There is a need for the use of frameworks to guide trial design and for a clear definition of optimisation success. It is recommended to consider using alternate methods that may overcome common impediments and align better with optimisation, such as adaptive designs and Bayesian statistics.

Indexed as

Research DesignHumansImplementationOptimisationStudy designTrial design

Identifiers

PMID40855437
PMCPMC12379312

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.