Process evaluation is an essential part of designing and testing complex interventions. New MRC guidance provides a framework for conducting and reporting process evaluation studiesAttempts to tackle problems such as smoking and obesity increasingly use complex interventions. These are commonly defined as interventions that comprise multiple interacting components, although additional dimensions of complexity include the difficulty of their implementation and the number of organisational levels they target. 1 Randomised controlled trials are regarded as the gold standard for establishing the effectiveness of interventions, when randomisation is feasible. However, effect sizes do not provide policy makers with information on how an intervention might be replicated in their specific context, or whether trial outcomes will be reproduced. Earlier MRC guidance for evaluating complex interventions focused on randomised trials, making no mention of process evaluation. 2 Updated guidance recognised the value of process evaluation within trials, stating that it "can be used to assess fidelity and quality of implementation, clarify causal mechanisms and identify contextual factors associated with variation in outcomes." 3 However, it did not provide guidance for carrying out process evaluation. Developing guidance for process evaluationIn 2010, a workshop funded by the MRC Population Health Science Research Network discussed the need for guidance on process evaluation. 4 There was consensus that researchers, funders, and reviewers would benefit from guidance. A group of researchers with experience and expertise in evaluating complex interventions was assembled to produce the guidance. In line with the principles followed in developing earlier MRC guidance documents, draft guidance was produced drawing on literature reviews, process evaluation case studies, workshops, and discussions at conferences and seminars. It was then circulated to academic, policy, and practice stakeholders for comment. Around 30 stakeholders provided written comments on the draft structure, while others commented during conference workshops run throughout the development process. A full draft was recirculated for further review, before being revised and approved by key MRC funding panels.Although the aim was to provide guidance on process evaluation of public health interventions, the guidance is highly relevant to complex intervention research in other domains, such as health services and education. The full guidance (www.populationhealthsciences.org/Process-Evaluation-Guidance.html) begins by setting out the need for process evaluation. It then presents a review of influential theories and frameworks which informed its development, before offering practical recommendations, and six detailed case studies. In this article, we provide an overview of the new framework and summarise our practical recommendations using one of the case studies as an example. MRC process evaluation frameworkThe new framework builds on the process evaluation themes descri...
Introduction: Appraising the quality of studies included in systematic reviews combining qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies is challenging. To address this challenge, a critical appraisal tool was developed: the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The aim of this paper is to present the MMAT. Development: The MMAT was developed in 2006 and was subject to pilot and interrater reliability testing. A revised new version of the MMAT was developed using the results from usefulness testing as well as a literature review on critical appraisal tools and a modified e-Delphi study with methodological experts to identify the core relevant criteria to include in the MMAT. Tool description: The MMAT includes quality criteria of five categories of study designs: (a) qualitative, (b) randomized controlled trial, (c) nonrandomized, (d) quantitative descriptive and (e) mixed methods studies. The MMAT focuses on core relevant methodological criteria and has five criteria per category of study design. Conclusion: The MMAT offers an alternative solution by proposing a unique tool that can appraise the quality of different study designs. Also, by limiting to core criteria, the MMAT can provide a more time efficient appraisal.
Objectives-To test the acceptability, validity, and reliability of the short form 36 health survey questionnaire and to compare it with the Nottingham health profile.Design-Postal survey using a questionnaire booklet together with a letter from the general practitioner. Non-respondents received two reminders at two week intervals. The SF-36 questionnaire was retested on a subsample of respondents two weeks after the first mailing.Setting-Two general practices in Sheffield. Patients-1980
ObjectiveTo provide researchers with guidance on actions to take during intervention development.Summary of key pointsBased on a consensus exercise informed by reviews and qualitative interviews, we present key principles and actions for consideration when developing interventions to improve health. These include seeing intervention development as a dynamic iterative process, involving stakeholders, reviewing published research evidence, drawing on existing theories, articulating programme theory, undertaking primary data collection, understanding context, paying attention to future implementation in the real world and designing and refining an intervention using iterative cycles of development with stakeholder input throughout.ConclusionResearchers should consider each action by addressing its relevance to a specific intervention in a specific context, both at the start and throughout the development process.
Techniques designed to combine the results of qualitative and quantitative studies can provide researchers with more knowledge than separate analysis
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.