Is reporting on interventions a weak link in understanding how and why they work? A preliminary exploration using community heart health exemplars

Abstract

Background: The persistent gap between research and practice compromises the impact of multi-level and multi-strategy community health interventions. Part of the problem is a limited understanding of how and why interventions produce change in population health outcomes. Systematic investigation of these intervention processes across studies requires sufficient reporting about interventions. Guided by a set of best processes related to the design, implementation, and evaluation of community health interventions, this article presents preliminary findings of intervention reporting in the published literature using community heart health exemplars as case examples.

Addressing Health Disparities Through Patient Education: The Development of Culturally-Tailored Health Education Materials at Puentes de Salud

“…We hope that this article will contribute to a growing literature in the area of process reporting and evaluation, guiding other groups in these critical steps of developing and implementing health interventions. Reporting on these important intervention processes represents a critical step in narrowing the persistent gap between research and practice, and may ultimately enhance the public health impact of local interventions (Riley et al, 2008).…”

Theorising Interventions as Events in Systems

“…But our sense is that this literature does not take explanation and understanding of complexity far enough, because it still locates the intervention in its constituent parts. The discourse is also complicated by different uses of terminology in the field, with some investigators equating ''multi level'' interventions with ''complex'' interventions (Riley et al 2008).…”

Influence of Behavioral Theory on Fruit and Vegetable Intervention Effectiveness Among Children: A Meta-Analysis

“…At one time, it was thought interventions needed to be consistent with a single theory, 31 but more recently investigators have recognized the complexity of behavior change and may use multiple theories to guide an intervention. 32 Alternatively, some investigators simply name theories without explaining how they used them; others provide minimal reports, whereas others employ formal intervention planning procedures such as ''intervention mapping'' 33 or a logic model 34 to inform how to apply findings in the literature to the intervention. In the absence of empirically validated effective intervention procedures, common sense must be used to design and evaluate theory-based interventions.…”