Research and implementation interactions in a social accountability study: utilizing guidance for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions

Abstract

Background In recent years, researchers and evaluators have made efforts to identify and use appropriate and innovative research designs that account for the complexity in studying social accountability. The relationship between the researchers and those implementing the activities and how this impacts the study have received little attention. In this paper, we reflect on how we managed the relationship between researchers and implementers using the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on process evaluation of a complex intervention. Main body The MRC guidance focuses on three areas of interaction between researchers and stakeholders involved in developing and delivering the intervention: (i) working with program developers and implementers; (ii) communication of emerging findings between researchers/evaluators and implementers; and (iii) overlapping roles of the intervention and research/evaluation. We summarize how the recommendations for each of the three areas were operationalized in the Community and Provider driven Social Accountability Intervention (CaPSAI) Project and provide reflections based on experience. We co-developed various tools, including standard operating procedures, contact lists, and manuals. Activities such as training sessions, regular calls, and meetings were also conducted to enable a good working relationship between the different partners. Conclusions Studying social accountability requires the collaboration of multiple partners that need to be planned to ensure a good working relationship while safeguarding both the research and intervention implementation. The MRC guidance is a useful tool for making interaction issues explicit and establishing procedures. Planning procedures for dealing with research and implementers’ interactions could be more comprehensive and better adapted to social accountability interventions if both researchers and implementers are involved. There is a need for social accountability research to include clear statements explaining the nature and types of relationships between researchers and implementers involved in the intervention.

The Methodological Approach to a Process Evaluation of a Community and Provider-Driven Social Accountability Intervention to Increase Contraceptive Uptake and Use

“…In Tanzania, the principal investigator trained and monitored the data collectors for the process evaluation. The structure of the CaPSAI project teams is described in more detail elsewhere (Cordero et al, 2022). A process evaluation co-ordinator from a separate institution, not involved in the intervention implementation, provided independent support to the process evaluation activities.…”

“…There were numerous activities that could have been observed, therefore the implementation team provided details of the various activities to the research team, highlighting the most relevant activities. The final selection of intervention activities to be observed was done by researchers, based on information received from the implementation team (Cordero et al, 2022).…”

“…Working with implementers allowed the process evaluation to capture varied data on the intervention. The interaction between research and implementation teams are further explored in a separate paper (Cordero et al, 2022).…”

“…During CaPSAI, they implemented their social accountability process in districts where they did not have an active programme taking place. More details of the intervention (McMullen et al, 2022; Steyn et al, 2022; Steyn et al, 2020 (a); World Health Organization, 2021) and the role of the implementation teams in CaPSAI (Cordero et al, 2022) have been published elsewhere.…”

“…There were numerous activities that could have been observed, therefore the implementation team provided details of the various activities to the research team, highlighting the most relevant activities. The final selection of intervention activities to be observed was done by researchers, based on information received from the implementation team (Cordero et al, 2022). The observations were conducted only at the four process evaluation sites, and were done to capture observational data about the activities and allows for the capture of a broader understanding of the context and implementation of an intervention by capturing non-verbal social information relevant for the social accountability process.…”