Pragmatic, formative process evaluations of complex interventions and why we need more of them [Editorial]

Evans, Rhiannon Emily ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0239-6331, Scourfield, Jonathan Bryn ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6218-8158 and Murphy, Simon ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3589-3681 2015. Pragmatic, formative process evaluations of complex interventions and why we need more of them [Editorial]. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 69 (10) , pp. 925-926. 10.1136/jech-2014-204806

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Recently published guidance on process evaluations by the Medical Research Council's (MRC's) Population Health Sciences Research Network (PHSRN) marks a significant advance in the evaluation of complex public health interventions.1 ,2 In presenting programmes as not just a set of mechanisms of change across multiple socioecological domains, but as an interaction of theory, context and implementation, the guidance extends the remit of evaluation and forces us to reassess the responsiveness of existing methodologies and frameworks. Process evaluations have emerged as vital instruments in reacting to these changing needs, through: the modelling of causal mechanisms; the identification of salient contextual influences; and the monitoring of fidelity and adaptations, which permits the circumvention of type 3 errors.3 While the guidance offers an instructive set of standards, the authors’ acknowledgement that there is no such thing as a ‘typical’ process evaluation1 ensures continued scope for debate and development around this framework. Specifically, the predominant focus on embedding process evaluations within definitive effectiveness trials encourages further theoretical and practical exploration of formative process evaluation. This approach is defined by the preclinical and first phase of the MRC's guidance on the development and evaluation of complex interventions.4 ,5 The preclinical phase involves the development of the intervention's theoretical rationale, primarily through consultation of the relevant literature. Meanwhile, phase 1 focuses on the modelling of processes and outcomes in order to identify underpinning …

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer) Social Sciences (Includes Criminology and Education)
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General)
Publisher:	BMJ Publishing Group
ISSN:	1470-2738
Date of Acceptance:	17 November 2014
Last Modified:	27 Oct 2022 09:55
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/68216

Citation Data

Cited 33 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item