Cargando…

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

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 fram...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Skivington, Kathryn, Matthews, Lynsay, Simpson, Sharon Anne, Craig, Peter, Baird, Janis, Blazeby, Jane M, Boyd, Kathleen Anne, Craig, Neil, French, David P, McIntosh, Emma, Petticrew, Mark, Rycroft-Malone, Jo, White, Martin, Moore, Laurence
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7614019/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34590577
http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta25570
_version_ 1783605553980768256
author Skivington, Kathryn
Matthews, Lynsay
Simpson, Sharon Anne
Craig, Peter
Baird, Janis
Blazeby, Jane M
Boyd, Kathleen Anne
Craig, Neil
French, David P
McIntosh, Emma
Petticrew, Mark
Rycroft-Malone, Jo
White, Martin
Moore, Laurence
author_facet Skivington, Kathryn
Matthews, Lynsay
Simpson, Sharon Anne
Craig, Peter
Baird, Janis
Blazeby, Jane M
Boyd, Kathleen Anne
Craig, Neil
French, David P
McIntosh, Emma
Petticrew, Mark
Rycroft-Malone, Jo
White, Martin
Moore, Laurence
author_sort Skivington, Kathryn
collection PubMed
description 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).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7614019
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76140192023-01-04 Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update Skivington, Kathryn Matthews, Lynsay Simpson, Sharon Anne Craig, Peter Baird, Janis Blazeby, Jane M Boyd, Kathleen Anne Craig, Neil French, David P McIntosh, Emma Petticrew, Mark Rycroft-Malone, Jo White, Martin Moore, Laurence Health Technol Assess Article 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). 2021-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7614019/ /pubmed/34590577 http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta25570 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaption in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. For attribution the title, original author(s), the publication source – NIHR Journals Library, and the DOI of the publication must be cited.
spellingShingle Article
Skivington, Kathryn
Matthews, Lynsay
Simpson, Sharon Anne
Craig, Peter
Baird, Janis
Blazeby, Jane M
Boyd, Kathleen Anne
Craig, Neil
French, David P
McIntosh, Emma
Petticrew, Mark
Rycroft-Malone, Jo
White, Martin
Moore, Laurence
Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update
title Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update
title_full Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update
title_fullStr Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update
title_full_unstemmed Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update
title_short Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update
title_sort framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7614019/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34590577
http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta25570
work_keys_str_mv AT skivingtonkathryn frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate
AT matthewslynsay frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate
AT simpsonsharonanne frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate
AT craigpeter frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate
AT bairdjanis frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate
AT blazebyjanem frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate
AT boydkathleenanne frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate
AT craigneil frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate
AT frenchdavidp frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate
AT mcintoshemma frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate
AT petticrewmark frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate
AT rycroftmalonejo frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate
AT whitemartin frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate
AT moorelaurence frameworkforthedevelopmentandevaluationofcomplexinterventionsgapanalysisworkshopandconsultationinformedupdate