Examining the use of process evaluations of randomised controlled trials of complex interventions addressing chronic disease in primary health care-a systematic review protocol

被引:13
|
作者
Liu H. [1 ]
Muhunthan J. [1 ]
Hayek A. [1 ]
Hackett M. [1 ]
Laba T.-L. [1 ]
Peiris D. [1 ]
Jan S. [1 ]
机构
[1] University of Sydney, The George Institute for Global Health, Level 10, King George V Building, 83-117 Missenden Rd, PO Box M201, Camperdown, 2050, NSW
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Chronic disease; Complex interventions; Primary health care; Process evaluations; Qualitative; Systematic review;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-016-0314-5
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions in primary health care (PHC) are needed to provide evidence-based programmes to achieve the Declaration of Alma Ata goal of making PHC equitable, accessible and universal and to effectively address the rising burden from chronic disease. Process evaluations of these RCTs can provide insight into the causal mechanisms of complex interventions, the contextual factors, and inform as to whether an intervention is ineffective due to implementation failure or failure of the intervention itself. To build on this emerging body of work, we aim to consolidate the methodology and methods from process evaluations of complex interventions in PHC and their findings of facilitators and barriers to intervention implementation in this important area of health service delivery. Methods: Systematic review of process evaluations of randomised controlled trials of complex interventions which address prevalent major chronic diseases in PHC settings. Published process evaluations of RCTs will be identified through database and clinical trial registry searches and contact with authors. Data from each study will be extracted by two reviewers using standardised forms. Data extracted include descriptive items about (1) the RCT, (2) about the process evaluations (such as methods, theories, risk of bias, analysis of process and outcome data, strengths and limitations) and (3) any stated barriers and facilitators to conducting complex interventions. A narrative synthesis of the findings will be presented. Discussion: Process evaluation findings are valuable in determining whether a complex intervention should be scaled up or modified for other contexts. Publishing this protocol serves to encourage transparency in the reporting of our synthesis of current literature on how process evaluations have been conducted thus far and a deeper understanding of potential challenges and solutions to aid in the implementation of effective interventions in PHC beyond the research setting. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42016035572. © 2016 The Author(s).
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review
    Liu, Hueiming
    Mohammed, Alim
    Shanthosh, Janani
    News, Madeline
    Laba, Tracey-Lea
    Hackett, Maree L.
    Peiris, David
    Jan, Stephen
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (08):
  • [2] Theoretical approaches to process evaluations of complex interventions in health care: a systematic scoping review protocol
    Tina Quasdorf
    Lauren Clack
    Franziska Laporte Uribe
    Daniela Holle
    Martin Berwig
    Daniel Purwins
    Marie-Therese Schultes
    Martina Roes
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 10
  • [3] Theoretical approaches to process evaluations of complex interventions in health care: a systematic scoping review protocol
    Quasdorf, Tina
    Clack, Lauren
    Laporte Uribe, Franziska
    Holle, Daniela
    Berwig, Martin
    Purwins, Daniel
    Schultes, Marie-Therese
    Roes, Martina
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2021, 10 (01)
  • [4] Process evaluation of complex interventions tested in randomised controlled trials in musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review protocol
    Ribeiro, Daniel C.
    Abbott, J. Haxby
    Sharma, Saurab
    Lamb, Sarah E.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (05):
  • [5] Addressing the evidence to practice gap for complex interventions in primary care: a systematic review of reviews protocol
    Lau, Rosa
    Stevenson, Fiona
    Ong, Bie Nio
    Dziedzic, Krysia
    Eldridge, Sandra
    Everitt, Hazel
    Kennedy, Anne
    Kontopantelis, Evangelos
    Little, Paul
    Qureshi, Nadeem
    Rogers, Anne
    Treweek, Shaun
    Peacock, Richard
    Murray, Elizabeth
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2014, 4 (06):
  • [6] Protocol for a systematic review of reporting standards of anaesthetic interventions in randomised controlled trials
    Elliott, Lucy
    Coulman, Karen
    Blencowe, Natalie S.
    Qureshi, Mahim
    Watson, Sethina
    Mouton, Ronelle
    Hinchliffe, Robert J.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (01):
  • [7] A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of the effects of digital health interventions on postpartum contraception use
    Sze, Yik Yan
    Berendes, Sima
    Russel, Sophie
    Bellam, Laura
    Smith, Chris
    Cameron, Sharon
    Free, Caroline J.
    [J]. BMJ SEXUAL & REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, 2023, 49 (01) : 50 - 59
  • [8] INTERVENTIONS FOR PRIMARY VESICOURETERIC REFLUX: AN UPDATED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALS
    Nagler, E.
    Williams, G.
    Hodson, E.
    Craig, J.
    [J]. NEPHROLOGY, 2010, 15 : 77 - 77
  • [9] Nurse-led virtual interventions in managing chronic diseases: a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
    Tao, Xingjuan
    Zhu, Weishan
    Chu, Mingzi
    Zhang, Yuanyuan
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2023, 13 (05):
  • [10] Health services research - Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions
    Oakley, A
    Strange, V
    Bonell, C
    Allen, E
    Stephenson, J
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 332 (7538): : 413 - 416