Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update

Author:

Skivington Kathryn1ORCID,Matthews Lynsay1ORCID,Simpson Sharon Anne1ORCID,Craig Peter1ORCID,Baird Janis2ORCID,Blazeby Jane M3ORCID,Boyd Kathleen Anne4ORCID,Craig Neil5ORCID,French David P6ORCID,McIntosh Emma4ORCID,Petticrew Mark7ORCID,Rycroft-Malone Jo8ORCID,White Martin9ORCID,Moore Laurence1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Medical Research Council/Chief Scientist Office Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

2. Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

3. Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research and Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

4. Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

5. Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, UK

6. Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

7. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

8. Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

9. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Abstract

Background The Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. Methods There were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments. Results Key changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six ‘core elements’ that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout. Limitations The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development. Conclusions This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as ‘events in systems’ that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers. Future work We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources. Funding This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).

Funder

Health Technology Assessment programme

Medical Research Council

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

Health Policy

Reference358 articles.

1. Medical Research Council (MRC). A Framework for Development and Evaluation of RCTs for Complex Interventions to Improve Health. London: MRC; 2000.

2. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health;Campbell;BMJ,2000

3. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance;Craig;BMJ,2008

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3