Research and implementation interactions in a social accountability study: utilizing guidance for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions.
Complex intervention
Methodology
Practice
Research
Social accountability
Journal
International journal for equity in health
ISSN: 1475-9276
Titre abrégé: Int J Equity Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147692
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 11 2022
03 11 2022
Historique:
entrez:
4
11
2022
pubmed:
5
11
2022
medline:
8
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36329485
doi: 10.1186/s12939-022-01718-0
pii: 10.1186/s12939-022-01718-0
pmc: PMC9632007
doi:
Types de publication
Letter
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
153Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Afr J Reprod Health. 2019 Sep;23(3):106-119
pubmed: 31782636
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jul 22;20(1):679
pubmed: 32698814
Reprod Health. 2016 Jul 22;13(1):88
pubmed: 27449128
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 9;15(10):e0238776
pubmed: 33035242
Glob Public Health. 2018 Dec;13(12):1853-1864
pubmed: 29671373
Gates Open Res. 2020 Mar 5;4:26
pubmed: 33134856
BMJ. 2021 Sep 30;374:n2061
pubmed: 34593508
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Mar 29;17(1):34
pubmed: 30925889
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jan 25;4(Suppl 1):e000963
pubmed: 30775018
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Nov 14;18(1):858
pubmed: 30428881
Gates Open Res. 2021 Jul 22;5:107
pubmed: 35967957
Health Policy Plan. 2014 Sep;29 Suppl 2:ii98-106
pubmed: 25274645
Confl Health. 2015 Sep 03;9:27
pubmed: 26336511
Health Policy Plan. 2017 Feb;32(1):125-140
pubmed: 27375128
Int J Equity Health. 2020 Jul 8;19(1):111
pubmed: 32635915
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Dec;31(10):1467-1478
pubmed: 27190223
J Health Popul Nutr. 2020 Dec 7;39(1):13
pubmed: 33287891
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jan 25;4(Suppl 1):e000848
pubmed: 30775013
PLoS One. 2020 May 19;15(5):e0232868
pubmed: 32428027
Int J Equity Health. 2021 Feb 6;20(1):56
pubmed: 33549116
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014 Feb;68(2):101-2
pubmed: 24022816
Int J Equity Health. 2018 Aug 20;17(1):125
pubmed: 30126428
BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):694-6
pubmed: 10987780
BMC Med. 2018 Jun 20;16(1):95
pubmed: 29921272