A typology of useful evidence: approaches to increase the practical value of intervention research

Abstract

Background: Too often, studies of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in preventive, community, and health care are not sufficiently useful to end users (typically practitioners, patients, policymakers, or other researchers). The ways in which intervention studies are conventionally conducted and reported mean that there is often a shortage of information when an EBI is used in practice. The paper aims to invite the research community to consider ways to optimize not only the trustworthiness but also the research's usefulness in intervention studies. This is done by proposing a typology that provides some approaches to useful EBIs for intervention researchers. The approaches originate from different research fields and are summarized to highlight their potential benefits from a usefulness perspective. Main message: The typology consists of research approaches to increase the usefulness of EBIs by improving the reporting of four features in intervention studies: (1) the interventions themselves, including core components and appropriate adaptations; (2) strategies to support-high-quality implementation of the interventions; (3) generalizations about the evidence in a variety of contexts; and (4) outcomes based on end users' preferences and knowledge. The research approaches fall into three levels: Description, Analysis, and Design. The first level, Description, outlines what types of information about the intervention and its implementation, context, and outcomes can be helpful for end users. Research approaches under analysis offers alternative ways of analyzing data, increasing the precision of information provided to end users. Approaches summarized under design involve more radical changes and far-reaching implications for how research can provide more useful information. These approaches partly flip the order of efficacy and effectiveness, focusing not on whether an intervention works in highly controlled and optimal circumstances, but first and foremost whether an intervention can be implemented and lead to anticipated outcomes in everyday practice.

A Slippery Slope When Using an Evidence-Based Intervention Out of Context. How Professionals Perceive and Navigate the Fidelity-Adaptation Dilemma—A Qualitative Study

“…Denoting interventions like Cool Kids research-supported (40) or empirically supported (41) rather than the more ambiguous term evidence-based (42) might be one such clarification. Designers and evaluators of EBIs can also support professionals by providing more useful information about, for example, core intervention components and patient and other contextual factors that may influence effectiveness (43). Such information is currently missing too often (17,18).…”

Music festival drug checking: evaluation of an Australian pilot program

“…This refers to a lack of implementation standards but also lack of implementation evidence. One of the areas of knowledge generation essential for evaluation and implementation research is the experience of and outcomes valued by stakeholders [ 20 ]. Incorporating experience and context into healthcare assessment provides evidence on how patients make sense of their health, whether the health information provided is considered appropriate and useful as well as the perceptions of those involved in the development and delivery of the service [ 21 ].…”

Eleven Reasons for Adaptation of Swedish Parenting Programs

“…More broadly, sociopolitical factors, such as financial allocations or other political actions, might influence the likelihood of adaptation through indirect means (5). In recent years, implementation researchers have developed frameworks to support consistent reporting of adaptations and modifications (1,5,16,17), and when needed, use them to make better adaptation decisions (9). The framework with the most comprehensive guidelines for reporting reasons for adaptations to EBIs is the expanded Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (FRAME) developed by Stirman et al (5).…”