Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Care | Protocol

Theoretical approaches to process evaluations of complex interventions in health care: a systematic scoping review protocol

Authors: Tina Quasdorf, Lauren Clack, Franziska Laporte Uribe, Daniela Holle, Martin Berwig, Daniel Purwins, Marie-Therese Schultes, Martina Roes

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Complex interventions in health care are characterized by multiple interacting components as well as by numerous nonlinear interactions with the social systems within which they are being implemented. The process of developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions is therefore challenging. Established guidance such as the MRC (Medical Research Council) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions refers to process evaluations as an integral part of the development of complex evidence-based interventions. Even though the need for process evaluations is recognized, the realization of such approaches is challenging because methodological instruction is sparse, and the phenomenon of interest is complex. A number of theoretical approaches indicating how to conduct process evaluations of complex interventions in health care exist, but a systematic and comprehensive overview of these is missing. Thus, the objective of the systematic scoping review described herein is to provide an overview and analysis of theoretical approaches suitable for the planning and conducting of process evaluations.

Methods

The design and conduct of this review will follow the procedures of a systematic scoping review. The search strategy will be developed following the BeHEMoTh (Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) template which has been conceptualized for structured reviews of theory. The systematic search of the MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL (via EBSCO) and PsycInfo (via EBSCO) electronic databases will be complemented by “hand searching” techniques. Study selection, data extraction, and data analysis will be performed by tandems of two researchers independently of each other. Divergent decisions and judgements between the two researchers will be discussed by the whole review team.

Discussion

The findings from this scoping review will provide an overview and comparison of theoretical approaches suitable for process evaluations of complex interventions in health care. The review results will support researchers in choosing the theoretical approach that best fits the respective focus of their process evaluation study.

Systematic review registration

This study has been registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under registration number CRD42020211732.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.CrossRef
2.
Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321(7262):694–6.CrossRef
3.
Moore GF, Evans RE, Hawkins J, Littlecott H, Melendez-Torres GJ, Bonell C, et al. From complex social interventions to interventions in complex social systems: Future directions and unresolved questions for intervention development and evaluation. Evaluation. 2019;25(1):23–45.CrossRef
4.
Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising Interventions as Events in Systems. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2009;43(3-4):267–76.CrossRef
5.
Shiell A, Hawe P, Gold L. Complex interventions or complex systems? Implications for health economic evaluation. BMJ. 2008;336(7656):1281–3.CrossRef
6.
Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350.
7.
Vernooij-Dassen M, Moniz-Cook E. Raising the standard of applied dementia care research: addressing the implementation error. Aging & Mental Health. 2014;18(7):809–14.CrossRef
8.
Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ. 2006;332(7538):413–6.CrossRef
9.
Rychetnik L, Frommer M, Hawe P, Shiell A. Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56(2):119–27.CrossRef
10.
Dobson D, Cook TJ. Avoiding type III error in program evaluation: Results from a field experiment. Eval Program Plan. 1980;3(4):269–76.CrossRef
11.
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. London: Medical Research Council; 2008.
12.
Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions - UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance. London: MRC Population Health Sciences Research Network; 2014 05/06/2020.
13.
Linnan L, Steckler A. Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research:An Overview. In: Steckler A, Linnan L, editors. Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research. New York: Wiley; 2002.
14.
Suchmann E. Evaluative Research: Principles and Practice in Public Service and Social Action Programms: Russell Sage Foundation; 1967.
15.
Baranowski T, Stables G. Process Evaluations of the 5-a-Day Projects. Health Educ Behavior. 2000;27(2):157–66.CrossRef
16.
Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14:15.CrossRef
17.
Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.CrossRef
18.
Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Haire-Joshu D, Kreuter MW, Weaver NL. A glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. J Public Health Manag Practice. 2008;14(2):117–23.CrossRef
19.
Leontjevas R, Gerritsen DL, Koopmans RT, Smalbrugge M, Vernooij-Dassen MJ. Process evaluation to explore internal and external validity of the "Act in Case of Depression" care program in nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13(5):488 e1-8.CrossRef
20.
Carpiano RM, Daley DM. A guide and glossary on post-positivist theory building for population health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(7):564–70.CrossRef
21.
Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science. 2015;10(1):53.CrossRef
22.
Rycroft-Malone J, Bucknall T. Theory, frameworks, and models - Laying down the groundwork. In: Rycroft-Malone J, Bucknall T, editors. Models and Frameworks for Implementing Evidence-Based Practice. 1 ed. Wiley; 2010.
23.
Campbell M, Egan M, Lorenc T, Bond L, Popham F, Fenton C, et al. Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health. Systematic Reviews. 2014;3(1):114.CrossRef
24.
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information Libraries J. 2009;26(2):91–108.CrossRef
25.
Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2016.
26.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4:1.CrossRef
27.
Booth A, Carroll C. Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable? Health Information Libraries J. 2015;32(3):220–35.CrossRef
28.
Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Qualitative Health Research. 2012;22(10):1435–43.CrossRef
29.
Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):45.CrossRef
30.
Thomas J, Kneale D, McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Bhaumik S. Chapter 2: Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2019. p. 13–32.CrossRef
31.
Thomas J, Graziosi S, Brunton J, Ghouze Z, O'Driscoll P, Bond M. EPPI-Reviewer: advanced software for systematic reviews, maps and evidence synthesis. EPPI-Centre Software. London: UCL Social Research Institute; 2020.
32.
33.
Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Littlewood A, Marshall C, Metzendorf M-I, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2019. p. 67–108.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Theoretical approaches to process evaluations of complex interventions in health care: a systematic scoping review protocol
Authors
Tina Quasdorf
Lauren Clack
Franziska Laporte Uribe
Daniela Holle
Martin Berwig
Daniel Purwins
Marie-Therese Schultes
Martina Roes
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01825-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Systematic Reviews 1/2021 Go to the issue

Protocol

Predictors of the length of stay of psychiatric inpatients: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Protocol

Effect of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation on functional capacity in people with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis—a systematic review protocol

Protocol

Effectiveness of interventions to increase uptake and completion of treatment for diabetic retinopathy in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid review protocol

Protocol

Obstructed labor and its association with adverse feto-maternal outcome in Ethiopia: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research

Communication strategies in the prevention of type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes in vulnerable groups: a scoping review

Systematic review update

Prevalence of sexual dysfunction in men with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis