Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41329817›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2025

The POETIC (PrOcess Evaluation of Trials In Critical care) Framework: A Structured Approach for Designing and Conducting Process Evaluations in Critical Care Trials.

Lydia M Emerson, Daniel F McAuley, Bronagh Blackwood, Mike Clarke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

4 authors.

Lydia M EmersonThe Medical School, Department of Health and Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4250-5758
Daniel F McAuleyWellcome Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Bronagh BlackwoodWellcome Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Mike ClarkeCentre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA process evaluation systematically examines how an intervention is delivered, including activities, procedures, and contextual factors influencing implementation. Existing process evaluation frameworks were primarily developed for education or public health settings, and do not reflect the complexity of critical care trials, which often involve medical technologies, high-acuity patients, and multidisciplinary care in dynamic environments. This study aimed to develop a framework (the POETIC (PrOcess Evaluation of Trials In Critical care) framework) to guide researchers in designing and conducting process evaluations that capture delivery quality and contextual understanding specific to critical care settings.

methodsFramework development began in 2015 and followed an iterative, multi-phase process. Phase 1 included structured literature reviews to identify a) existing process evaluation frameworks and dimensions, and b) critical care trials with embedded process evaluations. Both reviews were updated in 2025 to reflect POETIC's usage and ensure continued relevance. Phase 2 involved expert consultations with trialists, clinicians, and methodologists to refine framework dimensions. RESULTS AND

conclusionsFour key process evaluation frameworks and two U.K.-based critical care trials informed initial development. The 2025 update identified five additional U.K. trials, four of which applied POETIC, supporting its relevance and applicability. Expert consensus identified five core dimensions:• Context (Unit Culture, Organizational Structure, Resources, Usual Practice, Attitudes and Perceptions)• Fidelity (extent to which the intervention is delivered as intended)• Dose (amount of the intended intervention delivered and received)• Reach (extent to which the target population is exposed to, or engages with, the intervention)• Quality of Delivery (integrative measure of Fidelity, Dose, and Reach)The framework includes recommended methods such as checklists, interviews, routine trial data, and observations. It was iteratively refined to enhance usability and adaptability and has since been applied in multiple U.K.-based perioperative and critical care trials, demonstrating its utility in U.K. ICU settings. The POETIC framework supports structured evaluation of delivery quality and context in critical care trials, improving trial interpretation and advancing intervention design, delivery, and real-world applicability. Distinctively, POETIC operationalizes ICU-specific Context sub-constructs and provides a prespecified composite Quality of Delivery index to link intervention delivery to outcomes.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicCritical CareProcess Assessment, Health CareResearch DesignHumanscritical carehealth services researchprocess evaluationrandomized controlled trialsresearch design

Identifiers

PMID41329817
PMCPMC12674143

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.