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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2022-11-01
|
| Series: | International Journal for Equity in Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01718-0 |
| _version_ | 1797275434387243008 |
|---|---|
| author | Joanna Paula Cordero Vernon Mochache Victoria Boydell Mary Awelana Addah Heather McMullen Alice Monyo Sigilbert Mrema Dela Nai Donat Shamba Petrus S. Steyn |
| author_facet | Joanna Paula Cordero Vernon Mochache Victoria Boydell Mary Awelana Addah Heather McMullen Alice Monyo Sigilbert Mrema Dela Nai Donat Shamba Petrus S. Steyn |
| author_sort | Joanna Paula Cordero |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T15:14:19Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ade71cad129e461490e0f1cacb0e2436 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1475-9276 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T15:14:19Z |
| publishDate | 2022-11-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal for Equity in Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-ade71cad129e461490e0f1cacb0e24362024-03-05T18:01:27ZengBMCInternational Journal for Equity in Health1475-92762022-11-0121S111510.1186/s12939-022-01718-0Research and implementation interactions in a social accountability study: utilizing guidance for conducting process evaluations of complex interventionsJoanna Paula Cordero0Vernon Mochache1Victoria Boydell2Mary Awelana Addah3Heather McMullen4Alice Monyo5Sigilbert Mrema6Dela Nai7Donat Shamba8Petrus S. Steyn9UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development of Sexual and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP Research), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health OrganizationUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development of Sexual and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP Research), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization School of Health and Social Care, University of EssexGhana Integrity InitiativeGlobal Health Unit, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary, University of LondonSikikaDepartment of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health InstitutePopulation Council GhanaDepartment of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health InstituteUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development of Sexual and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP Research), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health OrganizationAbstract 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.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01718-0Social accountabilityComplex interventionResearchPracticeMethodology |
| spellingShingle | Joanna Paula Cordero Vernon Mochache Victoria Boydell Mary Awelana Addah Heather McMullen Alice Monyo Sigilbert Mrema Dela Nai Donat Shamba Petrus S. Steyn Research and implementation interactions in a social accountability study: utilizing guidance for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions International Journal for Equity in Health Social accountability Complex intervention Research Practice Methodology |
| title | Research and implementation interactions in a social accountability study: utilizing guidance for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions |
| title_full | Research and implementation interactions in a social accountability study: utilizing guidance for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions |
| title_fullStr | Research and implementation interactions in a social accountability study: utilizing guidance for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions |
| title_full_unstemmed | Research and implementation interactions in a social accountability study: utilizing guidance for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions |
| title_short | Research and implementation interactions in a social accountability study: utilizing guidance for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions |
| title_sort | research and implementation interactions in a social accountability study utilizing guidance for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions |
| topic | Social accountability Complex intervention Research Practice Methodology |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01718-0 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT joannapaulacordero researchandimplementationinteractionsinasocialaccountabilitystudyutilizingguidanceforconductingprocessevaluationsofcomplexinterventions AT vernonmochache researchandimplementationinteractionsinasocialaccountabilitystudyutilizingguidanceforconductingprocessevaluationsofcomplexinterventions AT victoriaboydell researchandimplementationinteractionsinasocialaccountabilitystudyutilizingguidanceforconductingprocessevaluationsofcomplexinterventions AT maryawelanaaddah researchandimplementationinteractionsinasocialaccountabilitystudyutilizingguidanceforconductingprocessevaluationsofcomplexinterventions AT heathermcmullen researchandimplementationinteractionsinasocialaccountabilitystudyutilizingguidanceforconductingprocessevaluationsofcomplexinterventions AT alicemonyo researchandimplementationinteractionsinasocialaccountabilitystudyutilizingguidanceforconductingprocessevaluationsofcomplexinterventions AT sigilbertmrema researchandimplementationinteractionsinasocialaccountabilitystudyutilizingguidanceforconductingprocessevaluationsofcomplexinterventions AT delanai researchandimplementationinteractionsinasocialaccountabilitystudyutilizingguidanceforconductingprocessevaluationsofcomplexinterventions AT donatshamba researchandimplementationinteractionsinasocialaccountabilitystudyutilizingguidanceforconductingprocessevaluationsofcomplexinterventions AT petrusssteyn researchandimplementationinteractionsinasocialaccountabilitystudyutilizingguidanceforconductingprocessevaluationsofcomplexinterventions |