Which design to evaluate complex interventions? Toward a methodological framework through a systematic review
Abstract Background Evaluation of complex interventions (CI) is challenging for health researchers and requires innovative approaches. The objective of this work is to present the main methods used to evaluate CI. Methods A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted to identify met...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2019-05-01
|
| Series: | BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-019-0736-6 |
| _version_ | 1818061578076946432 |
|---|---|
| author | Laetitia Minary Justine Trompette Joëlle Kivits Linda Cambon Cyril Tarquinio François Alla |
| author_facet | Laetitia Minary Justine Trompette Joëlle Kivits Linda Cambon Cyril Tarquinio François Alla |
| author_sort | Laetitia Minary |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Evaluation of complex interventions (CI) is challenging for health researchers and requires innovative approaches. The objective of this work is to present the main methods used to evaluate CI. Methods A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted to identify methods used for the evaluation of CI. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed databases for articles including an evaluation or a pilot study of a complex intervention, published in a ten-year period. Key-words of this research were (“complex intervention*” AND “evaluation”). Results Among 445 identified articles, 100 research results or protocols were included. Among them, 5 presented 2 different types of design in the same publication, thus our work included 105 designs. Individual randomized controlled trials (IRCT) represented 21.9% (n = 23) of evaluation designs, randomized clinical trials adaptations 44.8% (n = 47), quasi -experimental designs and cohort study 19.0% (n = 20), realist evaluation 6.7% (n = 7) and other cases studies and other approaches 8.6% (n = 9). A process/mechanisms analysis was included in 80% (n = 84) of these designs. Conclusion A range of methods can be used successively or combined at various steps of the evaluation approach. A framework is proposed to situate each of the designs with respect to evaluation questions. The growing interest of researchers in alternative methods and the development of their use must be accompanied by conceptual and methodological research in order to more clearly define their principles of use. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-10T13:50:32Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0f128b153052416baa33cf6543a5f834 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2288 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-10T13:50:32Z |
| publishDate | 2019-05-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| spelling | doaj.art-0f128b153052416baa33cf6543a5f8342022-12-22T01:46:13ZengBMCBMC Medical Research Methodology1471-22882019-05-011911910.1186/s12874-019-0736-6Which design to evaluate complex interventions? Toward a methodological framework through a systematic reviewLaetitia Minary0Justine Trompette1Joëlle Kivits2Linda Cambon3Cyril Tarquinio4François Alla5University of LorraineUniversity of LorraineUniversity of LorraineUniversity of Bordeaux, INSERM, Bordeaux Population Health Research CenterUniversity of LorraineUniversity of Bordeaux, INSERM, Bordeaux Population Health Research CenterAbstract Background Evaluation of complex interventions (CI) is challenging for health researchers and requires innovative approaches. The objective of this work is to present the main methods used to evaluate CI. Methods A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted to identify methods used for the evaluation of CI. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed databases for articles including an evaluation or a pilot study of a complex intervention, published in a ten-year period. Key-words of this research were (“complex intervention*” AND “evaluation”). Results Among 445 identified articles, 100 research results or protocols were included. Among them, 5 presented 2 different types of design in the same publication, thus our work included 105 designs. Individual randomized controlled trials (IRCT) represented 21.9% (n = 23) of evaluation designs, randomized clinical trials adaptations 44.8% (n = 47), quasi -experimental designs and cohort study 19.0% (n = 20), realist evaluation 6.7% (n = 7) and other cases studies and other approaches 8.6% (n = 9). A process/mechanisms analysis was included in 80% (n = 84) of these designs. Conclusion A range of methods can be used successively or combined at various steps of the evaluation approach. A framework is proposed to situate each of the designs with respect to evaluation questions. The growing interest of researchers in alternative methods and the development of their use must be accompanied by conceptual and methodological research in order to more clearly define their principles of use.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-019-0736-6Research methodsStudy designPublic healthHealth behaviour |
| spellingShingle | Laetitia Minary Justine Trompette Joëlle Kivits Linda Cambon Cyril Tarquinio François Alla Which design to evaluate complex interventions? Toward a methodological framework through a systematic review BMC Medical Research Methodology Research methods Study design Public health Health behaviour |
| title | Which design to evaluate complex interventions? Toward a methodological framework through a systematic review |
| title_full | Which design to evaluate complex interventions? Toward a methodological framework through a systematic review |
| title_fullStr | Which design to evaluate complex interventions? Toward a methodological framework through a systematic review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Which design to evaluate complex interventions? Toward a methodological framework through a systematic review |
| title_short | Which design to evaluate complex interventions? Toward a methodological framework through a systematic review |
| title_sort | which design to evaluate complex interventions toward a methodological framework through a systematic review |
| topic | Research methods Study design Public health Health behaviour |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-019-0736-6 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT laetitiaminary whichdesigntoevaluatecomplexinterventionstowardamethodologicalframeworkthroughasystematicreview AT justinetrompette whichdesigntoevaluatecomplexinterventionstowardamethodologicalframeworkthroughasystematicreview AT joellekivits whichdesigntoevaluatecomplexinterventionstowardamethodologicalframeworkthroughasystematicreview AT lindacambon whichdesigntoevaluatecomplexinterventionstowardamethodologicalframeworkthroughasystematicreview AT cyriltarquinio whichdesigntoevaluatecomplexinterventionstowardamethodologicalframeworkthroughasystematicreview AT francoisalla whichdesigntoevaluatecomplexinterventionstowardamethodologicalframeworkthroughasystematicreview |