Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review
Objective Process evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on imple...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2019-08-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/8/e025127.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850067012936531968 |
|---|---|
| author | Tracey-Lea Laba David Peiris Stephen Jan Maree L Hackett Hueiming Liu Alim Mohammed Janani Shanthosh Madeline News |
| author_facet | Tracey-Lea Laba David Peiris Stephen Jan Maree L Hackett Hueiming Liu Alim Mohammed Janani Shanthosh Madeline News |
| author_sort | Tracey-Lea Laba |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective Process evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on implementation barriers and facilitators.Design Systematic review using the UK Medical Research Council guidance for PE as a guide.Data sources Academic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE and Global Health) were searched from 1998 until June 2018.Eligibility criteria We included PE alongside randomised controlled trials of primary care interventions which aimed to improve outcomes for patients with non-communicable diseases.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers screened and conducted the data extraction and synthesis, with a third reviewer checking a sample for quality assurance.Results 69 studies were included. There was an overall lack of consistency in how PEs were conducted and reported. The main weakness is that only 30 studies were underpinned by a clear intervention theory often facilitated by the use of existing theoretical frameworks. The main strengths were robust sampling strategies, and the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data to understand an intervention’s mechanisms. Findings were synthesised into three key themes: (1) a fundamental mismatch between what the intervention was designed to achieve and local needs; (2) the required roles and responsibilities of key actors were often not clearly understood; and (3) the health system context—factors such as governance, financing structures and workforce—if unanticipated could adversely impact implementation.Conclusion Greater consistency is needed in the reporting and the methods of PEs, in particular greater use of theoretical frameworks to inform intervention theory. More emphasis on formative research in designing interventions is needed to align the intervention with the needs of local stakeholders, and to minimise unanticipated consequences due to context-specific barriers.PROSPERO registration number CRD42016035572. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-d6c7d73ab45f4eceb24ce0f0318b03a1 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2019-08-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-d6c7d73ab45f4eceb24ce0f0318b03a12025-08-20T02:48:30ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552019-08-019810.1136/bmjopen-2018-025127Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic reviewTracey-Lea Laba0David Peiris1Stephen Jan2Maree L Hackett3Hueiming Liu4Alim Mohammed5Janani Shanthosh6Madeline News7Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia5 Health Systems Science, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, AustraliaHealth Economics and Process Evaluation Program, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, AustraliaGeorge Institute for Global Health, Newtown, New South Wales, Australia4 Health Economics and Process Evaluation, The George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, New South Wales, AustraliaThe George Institute for Global Health, Hyderabad, IndiaThe George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaThe George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaObjective Process evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on implementation barriers and facilitators.Design Systematic review using the UK Medical Research Council guidance for PE as a guide.Data sources Academic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE and Global Health) were searched from 1998 until June 2018.Eligibility criteria We included PE alongside randomised controlled trials of primary care interventions which aimed to improve outcomes for patients with non-communicable diseases.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers screened and conducted the data extraction and synthesis, with a third reviewer checking a sample for quality assurance.Results 69 studies were included. There was an overall lack of consistency in how PEs were conducted and reported. The main weakness is that only 30 studies were underpinned by a clear intervention theory often facilitated by the use of existing theoretical frameworks. The main strengths were robust sampling strategies, and the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data to understand an intervention’s mechanisms. Findings were synthesised into three key themes: (1) a fundamental mismatch between what the intervention was designed to achieve and local needs; (2) the required roles and responsibilities of key actors were often not clearly understood; and (3) the health system context—factors such as governance, financing structures and workforce—if unanticipated could adversely impact implementation.Conclusion Greater consistency is needed in the reporting and the methods of PEs, in particular greater use of theoretical frameworks to inform intervention theory. More emphasis on formative research in designing interventions is needed to align the intervention with the needs of local stakeholders, and to minimise unanticipated consequences due to context-specific barriers.PROSPERO registration number CRD42016035572.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/8/e025127.full |
| spellingShingle | Tracey-Lea Laba David Peiris Stephen Jan Maree L Hackett Hueiming Liu Alim Mohammed Janani Shanthosh Madeline News Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review BMJ Open |
| title | Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review |
| title_full | Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review |
| title_fullStr | Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review |
| title_short | Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review |
| title_sort | process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease a systematic review |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/8/e025127.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT traceylealaba processevaluationsofprimarycareinterventionsaddressingchronicdiseaseasystematicreview AT davidpeiris processevaluationsofprimarycareinterventionsaddressingchronicdiseaseasystematicreview AT stephenjan processevaluationsofprimarycareinterventionsaddressingchronicdiseaseasystematicreview AT mareelhackett processevaluationsofprimarycareinterventionsaddressingchronicdiseaseasystematicreview AT hueimingliu processevaluationsofprimarycareinterventionsaddressingchronicdiseaseasystematicreview AT alimmohammed processevaluationsofprimarycareinterventionsaddressingchronicdiseaseasystematicreview AT jananishanthosh processevaluationsofprimarycareinterventionsaddressingchronicdiseaseasystematicreview AT madelinenews processevaluationsofprimarycareinterventionsaddressingchronicdiseaseasystematicreview |