改进过程评估中的情境测量:开发和使用情境跟踪工具。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Trials Pub Date : 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1186/s13063-024-08623-7
Joanna Busza, Fortunate Machingura, Cedomir Vuckovic
{"title":"改进过程评估中的情境测量:开发和使用情境跟踪工具。","authors":"Joanna Busza, Fortunate Machingura, Cedomir Vuckovic","doi":"10.1186/s13063-024-08623-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Process evaluations are increasingly integrated into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions to document their delivery and interactions with local systems and dynamics, helping understand observed health outcomes. Yet process evaluations often struggle to assess relevant contextual determinants, leaving much of the important role of \"context\" in shaping an intervention's mechanisms opaque in many studies. A lack of easily adapted data collection methods to help define and operationalise indicators of context likely contributes to this.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We present a method to help structure measures of context in process evaluations and describe its use in two very different settings. The \"Context Tracker\" is an innovative tool for use within trials and quasi-experiments to more systematically capture and understand key dimensions of context. It was developed in Zimbabwe as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial and then adapted for a quasi-experimental evaluation in the UK. Both studies provided harm reduction and health services for marginalised and hard-to-reach populations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We developed the Context Tracker to be both standardised (i.e. formatted and applied in the same way across study sites) and flexible enough to allow unique features to be explored in greater detail. Drawing on the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) and Risk Environments frameworks, we mapped 5 domains across micro, meso and macro levels in a simple table and used existing evidence and experience to predict factors likely to affect delivery of and participation in intervention components. We tracked these over time across study sites using routine programme statistics, observation and qualitative methods. The Context Tracker enables identification and comparison of facilitators and barriers to implementation, variations in engagement with interventions, and how mechanisms of action are (or are not) triggered in different settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Context Tracker is one example of how evidence-based contextual determinants can be used to guide data collection and analysis within process evaluations. It is relevant in low- and high-income settings and applicable to both qualitative and quantitative analyses. While perhaps most useful to process evaluations of complex interventions targeting marginalised communities, the broader approach would benefit a more general research audience.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"25 1","pages":"777"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571973/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving measures of context in process evaluations: development and use of the Context Tracker tool.\",\"authors\":\"Joanna Busza, Fortunate Machingura, Cedomir Vuckovic\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13063-024-08623-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Process evaluations are increasingly integrated into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions to document their delivery and interactions with local systems and dynamics, helping understand observed health outcomes. Yet process evaluations often struggle to assess relevant contextual determinants, leaving much of the important role of \\\"context\\\" in shaping an intervention's mechanisms opaque in many studies. A lack of easily adapted data collection methods to help define and operationalise indicators of context likely contributes to this.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We present a method to help structure measures of context in process evaluations and describe its use in two very different settings. The \\\"Context Tracker\\\" is an innovative tool for use within trials and quasi-experiments to more systematically capture and understand key dimensions of context. It was developed in Zimbabwe as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial and then adapted for a quasi-experimental evaluation in the UK. Both studies provided harm reduction and health services for marginalised and hard-to-reach populations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We developed the Context Tracker to be both standardised (i.e. formatted and applied in the same way across study sites) and flexible enough to allow unique features to be explored in greater detail. Drawing on the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) and Risk Environments frameworks, we mapped 5 domains across micro, meso and macro levels in a simple table and used existing evidence and experience to predict factors likely to affect delivery of and participation in intervention components. We tracked these over time across study sites using routine programme statistics, observation and qualitative methods. The Context Tracker enables identification and comparison of facilitators and barriers to implementation, variations in engagement with interventions, and how mechanisms of action are (or are not) triggered in different settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Context Tracker is one example of how evidence-based contextual determinants can be used to guide data collection and analysis within process evaluations. It is relevant in low- and high-income settings and applicable to both qualitative and quantitative analyses. While perhaps most useful to process evaluations of complex interventions targeting marginalised communities, the broader approach would benefit a more general research audience.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trials\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"777\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571973/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08623-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08623-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:过程评估越来越多地被纳入复杂干预措施的随机对照试验(RCT)中,以记录干预措施的实施情况以及与当地系统和动态的相互作用,从而帮助理解观察到的健康结果。然而,过程评估往往难以评估相关的背景决定因素,导致许多研究中 "背景 "在形成干预机制方面的重要作用不为人知。缺乏易于调整的数据收集方法来帮助定义和操作背景指标,很可能是造成这种情况的原因:方法:我们提出了一种方法来帮助构建过程评估中的情境测量方法,并描述了该方法在两种截然不同的环境中的应用。情境跟踪器 "是一种创新工具,用于试验和准试验,以更系统地捕捉和了解情境的关键维度。该工具是在津巴布韦开发的,作为分组随机对照试验的一部分,随后在英国的准实验评估中进行了调整。这两项研究都为边缘化和难以接触到的人群提供了减低伤害和健康服务:我们开发的情境追踪器既标准化(即在不同研究地点采用相同的格式和应用方式),又足够灵活,可以更详细地探索其独特之处。借鉴复杂干预的背景与实施(CICI)和风险环境框架,我们将微观、中观和宏观层面的 5 个领域映射到一个简单的表格中,并利用现有证据和经验来预测可能影响干预内容的实施和参与的因素。我们利用常规计划统计、观察和定性方法,在各个研究地点对这些因素进行长期跟踪。情境跟踪器能够识别和比较实施的促进因素和障碍、参与干预的差异,以及在不同环境下如何触发(或未触发)行动机制:情境跟踪器是一个例子,说明如何在过程评估中利用基于证据的情境决定因素来指导数据收集和分析。它适用于低收入和高收入环境,也适用于定性和定量分析。虽然这种方法可能对针对边缘化社区的复杂干预措施的过程评估最有用,但更广泛的方法将使更多的研究人员受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Improving measures of context in process evaluations: development and use of the Context Tracker tool.

Background: Process evaluations are increasingly integrated into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions to document their delivery and interactions with local systems and dynamics, helping understand observed health outcomes. Yet process evaluations often struggle to assess relevant contextual determinants, leaving much of the important role of "context" in shaping an intervention's mechanisms opaque in many studies. A lack of easily adapted data collection methods to help define and operationalise indicators of context likely contributes to this.

Methods: We present a method to help structure measures of context in process evaluations and describe its use in two very different settings. The "Context Tracker" is an innovative tool for use within trials and quasi-experiments to more systematically capture and understand key dimensions of context. It was developed in Zimbabwe as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial and then adapted for a quasi-experimental evaluation in the UK. Both studies provided harm reduction and health services for marginalised and hard-to-reach populations.

Results: We developed the Context Tracker to be both standardised (i.e. formatted and applied in the same way across study sites) and flexible enough to allow unique features to be explored in greater detail. Drawing on the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) and Risk Environments frameworks, we mapped 5 domains across micro, meso and macro levels in a simple table and used existing evidence and experience to predict factors likely to affect delivery of and participation in intervention components. We tracked these over time across study sites using routine programme statistics, observation and qualitative methods. The Context Tracker enables identification and comparison of facilitators and barriers to implementation, variations in engagement with interventions, and how mechanisms of action are (or are not) triggered in different settings.

Conclusions: The Context Tracker is one example of how evidence-based contextual determinants can be used to guide data collection and analysis within process evaluations. It is relevant in low- and high-income settings and applicable to both qualitative and quantitative analyses. While perhaps most useful to process evaluations of complex interventions targeting marginalised communities, the broader approach would benefit a more general research audience.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
期刊最新文献
Effect of a patient health engagement (PHE) model on rehabilitation participation in patients with acute myocardial infarction after PCI: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Evaluating effects of meal delivery on the ability of homebound older adults to remain in the community via a pragmatic, two-arm, randomized comparative effectiveness trial: study protocol for the Deliver-EE trial. Prochlorperazine maleate versus placebo for the prevention of acute mountain sickness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Interventions to modify the habituation of biological responses to repeated stress in healthy adults: a randomized controlled trial. Integrating habit science and learning theory to promote maintenance of behavior change: does adding text messages to a habit-based sleep health intervention (HABITs) improve outcomes for eveningness chronotype young adults? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1