Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance

Graham F Moore, Suzanne Audrey, Mary Barker, Lyndal Bond, Chris Bonell, Wendy Hardeman, Laurence Moore, Alicia O'Cathain, Tannaze Tinati, Daniel Wight, Janis Baird, Graham F Moore, Suzanne Audrey, Mary Barker, Lyndal Bond, Chris Bonell, Wendy Hardeman, Laurence Moore, Alicia O'Cathain, Tannaze Tinati, Daniel Wight, Janis Baird

Abstract

Process evaluation is an essential part of designing and testing complex interventions. New MRC guidance provides a framework for conducting and reporting process evaluation studies

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4794017/bin/moog021594.f1_default.jpg
Fig 1 Key functions of process evaluation and relations among them (blue boxes are the key components of a process evaluation. Investigation of these components is shaped by a clear intervention description and informs interpretation of outcomes)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4794017/bin/moog021594.f2_default.jpg
Fig 2 Logic model for the INCLUSIVE intervention to reduce violence and aggression in schools
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4794017/bin/moog021594.f3_default.jpg
Fig 3 Commonly used data collection and analysis methods for process evaluation

References

    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337:a1655.
    1. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 2000;321:694-96.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance: MRC, 2008.
    1. Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: the need for guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health 2014;68:101-02.
    1. Fretheim A, Flottorp S, Oxman AD. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data: a response to Eccle’s criticism of the OFF theory of research utilization. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:119-20.
    1. De Silva M, Breuer E, Lee L, et al. Theory of change: a theory-driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council’s framework for complex interventions. Trials 2014;15:267.
    1. Steckler A, Linnan L, editors. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. Jossey-Bass, 2002.
    1. Moore GF, Raisanen L, Moore L, et al. Mixed-method process evaluation of the Welsh National Exercise Referral Scheme. Health Education 2013;113:476-501.
    1. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be? BMJ 2004;328:1561-63.
    1. Bumbarger B, Perkins D. After randomised trials: issues related to dissemination of evidence-based interventions. J Children Serv 2008;3:55-64.
    1. Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, et al. A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci 2007;2:40.
    1. Montgomery P, Underhill K, Gardner F, et al. The Oxford Implementation Index: a new tool for incorporating implementation data into systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:874-82.
    1. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999;89:1322-27.
    1. Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, et al. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials 2013;14:15.
    1. Bonell C, Fletcher A, Morton M, et al. Realist randomised controlled trials: a new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Soc Sci Med 2012;75:2299-306.
    1. Shiell A, Hawe P, Gold L. Complex interventions or complex systems? Implications for health economic evaluation. BMJ 2008;336:1281-83.
    1. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. Sage, 1997.
    1. Littlecott H, Moore G, Moore L, et al. Psychosocial mediators of change in physical activity in the Welsh national exercise referral scheme: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Physical Activity 2014;11:109.
    1. Moore GF, Moore L, Murphy S. Integration of motivational interviewing into practice in the national exercise referral scheme in Wales: a mixed methods study. Behav Cog Psychother 2012;40:313-30.
    1. Audrey S, Holliday J, Parry-Langdon N, et al. Meeting the challenges of implementing process evaluation within randomized controlled trials: the example of ASSIST (A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial). Health Educ Res 2006;21:366-77.
    1. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or dysfunctional? Team working in mixed-methods research. Qual Health Res 2008;18:1574-85.
    1. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising Interventions as Events in Systems. Am J Community Psychol 2009;43:267-76.
    1. Kellogg Foundation WK. Logic model development guide. W K Kellogg Foundation, 2004.
    1. Bonell C, Fletcher, A, Fitzgerald-Yau, N, et al. Initiating change locally in bullying and aggression through the school environment (INCLUSIVE): pilot randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess (forthcoming).
    1. Markham WA, Aveyard P. A new theory of health promoting schools based on human functioning, school organisation and pedagogic practice. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:1209-20.
    1. Sawyer MG, Pfeiffer S, Spence SH, et al. School based prevention of depression: a randomised controlled study of the beyondblue schools research initiative. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2010;51:199-209.
    1. Waters E, Hall BJ, Armstrong R, et al. Essential components of public health evidence reviews: capturing intervention complexity, implementation, economics and equity. J Public Health 2011;33:462-65.
    1. Munro A, Bloor M. Process evaluation: the new miracle ingredient in public health research? Qualitative Research 2010;10:699-713.
    1. Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, et al. Health services research—process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ 2006;332:413-6.
    1. Mermelstein R. Moving tobacco prevention outside the classroom. Lancet 2008;371:1556-57.
    1. Armstrong R, Waters E, Moore L, et al. Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT. J Public Health 2008;30:103-9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren