Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41291773›Full record

ArticleTrials2025

'Lessons learned' from trialists who adapted a complex intervention for remote delivery within a trial as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

Ella Howes, Samuel G Smith, Katie Gillies, Lisa Zhang, Amanda J Farrin

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

5 authors.

Ella HowesLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. umelh@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8488-1073
Samuel G SmithLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Katie GilliesAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Lisa ZhangDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Amanda J FarrinLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/W006049/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, complex interventions being evaluated in randomised controlled trials were often rapidly adapted from in-person to remote delivery. Such adaptations to intervention delivery have the potential to cause unintended consequences and affect important aspects of trial generalisability and interpretation. This scoping review aimed to identify the 'lessons learned' from trialists who adapted and remotely delivered a complex intervention within a trial because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Gaining a better understanding of trialists' experiences of adapting interventions for remote delivery will identify where more in-depth investigation and guidance is needed.

methodsThe Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review guidelines were followed. The search was developed for MEDLINE and adapted for Web of Science, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Data were extracted on study characteristics, methods reported to adapt interventions, and the challenges and facilitators of the process of adaptation and remote intervention delivery. Data on remote intervention delivery were organised using the upper level of the Behaviour Change Intervention Ontology.

resultsFifteen articles were eligible for inclusion describing insights from 16 randomised controlled trials, across a range of populations and trial designs. Most discussion focused on challenges and facilitators of the remote delivery of the complex intervention. These included privacy and safety concerns of intervention delivery within the home setting, and technological issues of remote delivery via video call. The most frequently reported facilitator was the use of an environmental inventory before intervention delivery to check the space in which participants were located, and the materials available to them.

conclusionSuitability of an intervention for remote delivery depends not only on whether it is originally delivered via a digital technology, but also the extent to which it requires human facilitation and support. Privacy and safety concerns in the home environment could impact trial participation in a remotely delivered intervention. Further research is needed to explore how trialists can effectively prepare for and manage the challenges of remote intervention delivery. Guidance developed to support adaptation of an intervention for remote delivery within a trial should be specific to the mode of delivery used.

Indexed as

COVID-19Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Telemedicine

Identifiers

PMID41291773
PMCPMC12648927

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.