What do we want to get out of this? a critical interpretive synthesis of the value of process evaluations, with a practical planning framework.
Critical interpretive synthesis
Process evaluation
Research impact
Systematic review
Values
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 11 2022
25 11 2022
Historique:
received:
02
05
2022
accepted:
21
10
2022
entrez:
26
11
2022
pubmed:
27
11
2022
medline:
30
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Process evaluations aim to understand how complex interventions bring about outcomes by examining intervention mechanisms, implementation, and context. While much attention has been paid to the methodology of process evaluations in health research, the value of process evaluations has received less critical attention. We aimed to unpack how value is conceptualised in process evaluations by identifying and critically analysing 1) how process evaluations may create value and 2) what kind of value they may create. We systematically searched for and identified published literature on process evaluation, including guidance, opinion pieces, primary research, reviews, and discussion of methodological and practical issues. We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis and developed a practical planning framework. We identified and included 147 literature items. From these we determined three ways in which process evaluations may create value or negative consequences: 1) through the socio-technical processes of 'doing' the process evaluation, 2) through the features/qualities of process evaluation knowledge, and 3) through using process evaluation knowledge. We identified 15 value themes. We also found that value varies according to the characteristics of individual process evaluations, and is subjective and context dependent. The concept of value in process evaluations is complex and multi-faceted. Stakeholders in different contexts may have very different expectations of process evaluations and the value that can and should be obtained from them. We propose a planning framework to support an open and transparent process to plan and create value from process evaluations and negotiate trade-offs. This will support the development of joint solutions and, ultimately, generate more value from process evaluations to all.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Process evaluations aim to understand how complex interventions bring about outcomes by examining intervention mechanisms, implementation, and context. While much attention has been paid to the methodology of process evaluations in health research, the value of process evaluations has received less critical attention. We aimed to unpack how value is conceptualised in process evaluations by identifying and critically analysing 1) how process evaluations may create value and 2) what kind of value they may create.
METHODS
We systematically searched for and identified published literature on process evaluation, including guidance, opinion pieces, primary research, reviews, and discussion of methodological and practical issues. We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis and developed a practical planning framework.
RESULTS
We identified and included 147 literature items. From these we determined three ways in which process evaluations may create value or negative consequences: 1) through the socio-technical processes of 'doing' the process evaluation, 2) through the features/qualities of process evaluation knowledge, and 3) through using process evaluation knowledge. We identified 15 value themes. We also found that value varies according to the characteristics of individual process evaluations, and is subjective and context dependent.
CONCLUSION
The concept of value in process evaluations is complex and multi-faceted. Stakeholders in different contexts may have very different expectations of process evaluations and the value that can and should be obtained from them. We propose a planning framework to support an open and transparent process to plan and create value from process evaluations and negotiate trade-offs. This will support the development of joint solutions and, ultimately, generate more value from process evaluations to all.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36434520
doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01767-7
pii: 10.1186/s12874-022-01767-7
pmc: PMC9700891
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
302Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Thorax. 2019 Jan;74(1):7-10
pubmed: 30337416
PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e52621
pubmed: 23300726
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015 Oct;69(10):925-6
pubmed: 25480407
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Jul 6;20(1):181
pubmed: 32631324
BMC Public Health. 2021 Jan 18;21(1):154
pubmed: 33461528
Eval Program Plann. 2014 Oct;46:58-71
pubmed: 24934642
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Dec 29;18(1):180
pubmed: 30594133
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 May;61(5):844-5
pubmed: 23672563
Trials. 2012 Jun 28;13:95
pubmed: 22742939
Eval Program Plann. 2015 Apr;49:106-16
pubmed: 25614139
Implement Sci. 2018 Feb 08;13(1):26
pubmed: 29422080
Am J Community Psychol. 1999 Oct;27(5):711-31
pubmed: 10676545
Transl Behav Med. 2020 Feb 3;10(1):168-178
pubmed: 30476259
Health Promot Pract. 2004 Apr;5(2):138-50
pubmed: 15090168
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012 Jun;13(5):488.e1-8
pubmed: 22521629
J Glob Health. 2014 Dec;4(2):020409
pubmed: 25520799
AIDS. 2016 May 15;30(8):1301-4
pubmed: 27128329
Eval Program Plann. 2020 Oct;82:101850
pubmed: 32721594
Am J Community Psychol. 2009 Jun;43(3-4):267-76
pubmed: 19390961
Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):661-75
pubmed: 24325553
Health Educ Res. 2009 Jun;24(3):507-19
pubmed: 18936271
BMJ. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):413-6
pubmed: 16484270
BMC Public Health. 2017 Aug 29;17(1):681
pubmed: 28851329
Health Educ Behav. 2000 Apr;27(2):157-66
pubmed: 10768797
Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2016 Oct;77(10):554-555
pubmed: 27723408
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
Health Educ Res. 2006 Jun;21(3):366-77
pubmed: 16740670
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jul 16;19(1):953
pubmed: 31340828
Health Promot Pract. 2005 Apr;6(2):134-47
pubmed: 15855283
Implement Sci. 2018 Nov 16;13(1):138
pubmed: 30442165
BMC Fam Pract. 2007 Jul 24;8:42
pubmed: 17650326
Lancet Neurol. 2015 Nov;14(11):1065
pubmed: 26466772
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Jul 26;6:35
pubmed: 16872487
Eur J Public Health. 2010 Apr;20(2):220-6
pubmed: 19561172
Qual Health Res. 2021 Jul;31(9):1724-1737
pubmed: 33980080
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 6;9(11):e031438
pubmed: 31699734
Health Promot Pract. 2012 Jul;13(4):524-34
pubmed: 22102603
Eval Program Plann. 2018 Oct;70:67-72
pubmed: 30005320
J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996 Jan;1(1):35-43
pubmed: 10180843
Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Jun;16(3):224-9
pubmed: 17545351
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 8;6(11):e013002
pubmed: 28186944
Implement Sci. 2016 Feb 24;11:23
pubmed: 26912211
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Trials. 2014 Jun 09;15:215
pubmed: 24913438
Trials. 2012 Aug 28;13:154
pubmed: 22929598
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 29;5:71
pubmed: 20920277
J Pediatr Psychol. 2001 Oct-Nov;26(7):407-15
pubmed: 11553695
Health Educ Behav. 2002 Apr;29(2):232-48
pubmed: 11942717
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Apr;10(2):103-10
pubmed: 15831193
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Dec 15;61 Suppl 7:S752-8
pubmed: 26602304
Tob Control. 2000;9 Suppl 3:III29-35
pubmed: 10982902
Trials. 2016 May 04;17(1):232
pubmed: 27142662
Eval Health Prof. 2015 Sep;38(3):295-314
pubmed: 24064427
Implement Sci. 2014 Sep 27;9:113
pubmed: 25413978
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Feb;21(1):97-102
pubmed: 25312557
Trials. 2020 Nov 9;21(1):916
pubmed: 33168067
Trials. 2020 Nov 27;21(1):982
pubmed: 33246496
Health Promot Pract. 2009 Oct;10(4):537-48
pubmed: 18535312
Qual Life Res. 2017 Jun;26(6):1393-1404
pubmed: 27933429
Implement Sci. 2019 Feb 1;14(1):11
pubmed: 30709368
J Prev Interv Community. 2009;37(4):289-301
pubmed: 19830624
Eval Program Plann. 2008 Nov;31(4):376-81
pubmed: 18582940
Eval Program Plann. 2008 May;31(2):209-16
pubmed: 18403017
BMC Med. 2016 May 23;14:78
pubmed: 27211576
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014 Sep 10;11:112
pubmed: 25212062
Health Technol Assess. 2016 Oct;20(76):1-254
pubmed: 27767013
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Jul;232:389-397
pubmed: 31146148
BMJ. 2021 Sep 30;374:n2061
pubmed: 34593508
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Dec 05;14:607
pubmed: 25475025
Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:323-40
pubmed: 16533120
Trials. 2013 Jan 12;14:15
pubmed: 23311722
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Apr 20;5(4):e47
pubmed: 28428165
SSM Popul Health. 2017 Dec;3:255-265
pubmed: 29302612
Trials. 2014 Jul 05;15:267
pubmed: 24996765
J Eval Clin Pract. 2021 Apr;27(2):264-271
pubmed: 32424993
Evaluation (Lond). 2019 Jan;25(1):23-45
pubmed: 30705608
Implement Sci. 2018 Jun 7;13(1):80
pubmed: 29879986
Health Technol Assess. 2014 Jun;18(38):1-197, v-vi
pubmed: 24914457
J Sch Health. 2000 Apr;70(4):141-7
pubmed: 10790837
Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb;12(1):40-6
pubmed: 12571344
Matern Child Nutr. 2018 Jul;14(3):e12573
pubmed: 29278449
Trials. 2011 Feb 02;12:28
pubmed: 21288341
Matern Child Nutr. 2017 Oct;13(4):
pubmed: 28194883
BMC Health Serv Res. 2008 Dec 23;8:274
pubmed: 19105823
Health Educ Q. 1994;Suppl 2:S5-26
pubmed: 8113062
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009 Nov 30;6:79
pubmed: 19948049
PLoS Med. 2020 Nov 2;17(11):e1003368
pubmed: 33137099
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2013 Mar;45(2):126-36
pubmed: 23321021
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2020 Mar;19(3):269-274
pubmed: 32054300
Implement Sci. 2014 Jun 17;9:75
pubmed: 24935096
Health Educ Q. 1994;Suppl 2:S129-42
pubmed: 8113060
Implement Sci. 2016 May 12;11:66
pubmed: 27175799
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Jan 9;18(1):10
pubmed: 33422066
Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 15;5(1):138
pubmed: 27526851
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014 Aug 15;66 Suppl 3:S293-9
pubmed: 25007199
Lancet. 2017 Dec 9;390(10112):2602-2604
pubmed: 28622953
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Mar 28;17(1):238
pubmed: 28351355
Implement Sci. 2011 Jul 19;6:74
pubmed: 21771329
Syst Rev. 2014 Dec 23;3:149
pubmed: 25534345