ArticlePloS one2026
From participation to systematization: A scoping review of theoretical frameworks guiding process evaluations in community mental health interventions.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProcess evaluations are essential for understanding how community mental health interventions are implemented and why they succeed or fail. While numerous theoretical frameworks exist to guide such evaluations, the landscape of framework use in mental health contexts remains uncharted, limiting methodological guidance for researchers and practitioners.
methodsScoping review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Systematic searches of three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCOhost) identified 1,143 records, from which process evaluations of community mental health interventions published between 2006 and 2025 were selected. Data extraction captured framework characteristics, study context, and methodological features. Frameworks were inductively categorized into a hierarchical typology based on theoretical orientation and stated function.
resultsEighty-three studies met inclusion criteria, employing 54 distinct primary frameworks organized into 14 categories. Implementation science frameworks dominated (39.8%), followed by process evaluation-specific frameworks (8.4%), behavior change theories (8.4%), and participatory approaches (6.0%). A marked temporal shift was observed: participatory and community-based frameworks characterized early publications (23.8% in 2006-2015) but were absent as primary frameworks after 2015, while implementation science frameworks rose from 14.3% to over 50% of studies. Geographic concentration in North America (54.2%) and high-income countries (83.1%) was pronounced.
conclusionsThe field has undergone a paradigm shift from community-engaged to systematized evaluation approaches. While framework consolidation offers methodological consistency, the decline of participatory approaches raises questions about the role of community voice in evaluation design. We propose a typology to guide framework selection and identify priorities for methodological development in community mental health process evaluation.
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.