The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

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

Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update
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 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.
1366-5278
Skivington, Kathryn
9bcb8789-95b7-41ee-9515-d4b2676da931
Matthews, Lynsay
8715100d-1735-44f3-9b6d-dfb4c175b334
Simpson, Sharon Anne
9b735262-6af7-40c4-a2d6-6a43cb2ddd00
Craig, Peter
50f4c34c-b800-42be-bb7d-d421d20e1fc4
Baird, Janis
f4bf2039-6118-436f-ab69-df8b4d17f824
Blazeby, Jane M.
689d490e-fca3-4430-88de-f19ec6cebf58
Boyd, Kathleen Anne
4e307b13-0144-45b6-91cc-970134d58b40
Craig, Neil
bb3d63b1-35de-475b-9222-1d2f68f5844f
French, David
08ea7ade-bc16-4181-875e-e79ae8eb8138
McIntosh, Emma
2f26b70d-5d8a-429c-a2c0-e2a98a6c0196
Petticrew, Mark
a60e09b9-5280-4f5b-8470-18e634af33ac
Rycroft-Malone, Jo
536e0885-d7e0-4044-83e4-aab2c9679fbe
White, Martin
bd733033-deff-4625-b6a5-012af7efc395
Moore, Laurence
0a464198-5aee-4e82-a499-edd1a73cde5a
Skivington, Kathryn
9bcb8789-95b7-41ee-9515-d4b2676da931
Matthews, Lynsay
8715100d-1735-44f3-9b6d-dfb4c175b334
Simpson, Sharon Anne
9b735262-6af7-40c4-a2d6-6a43cb2ddd00
Craig, Peter
50f4c34c-b800-42be-bb7d-d421d20e1fc4
Baird, Janis
f4bf2039-6118-436f-ab69-df8b4d17f824
Blazeby, Jane M.
689d490e-fca3-4430-88de-f19ec6cebf58
Boyd, Kathleen Anne
4e307b13-0144-45b6-91cc-970134d58b40
Craig, Neil
bb3d63b1-35de-475b-9222-1d2f68f5844f
French, David
08ea7ade-bc16-4181-875e-e79ae8eb8138
McIntosh, Emma
2f26b70d-5d8a-429c-a2c0-e2a98a6c0196
Petticrew, Mark
a60e09b9-5280-4f5b-8470-18e634af33ac
Rycroft-Malone, Jo
536e0885-d7e0-4044-83e4-aab2c9679fbe
White, Martin
bd733033-deff-4625-b6a5-012af7efc395
Moore, Laurence
0a464198-5aee-4e82-a499-edd1a73cde5a

Skivington, Kathryn, Matthews, Lynsay, Simpson, Sharon Anne, Craig, Peter, Baird, Janis, Blazeby, Jane M., Boyd, Kathleen Anne, Craig, Neil, French, David, McIntosh, Emma, Petticrew, Mark, Rycroft-Malone, Jo, White, Martin and Moore, Laurence (2021) Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update. Health Technology Assessment, 25 (57). (doi:10.3310/hta25570).

Record type: Article

Abstract

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.

Text
3037639 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (2MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 21 January 2021
Published date: 30 September 2021
Additional Information: Funding: Health Technology Assessment programme, NIHR

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 454771
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/454771
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: 11a3b592-507d-4f38-bfcd-dea74694fcb6
ORCID for Janis Baird: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4039-4361

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 23 Feb 2022 17:33
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 02:56

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Kathryn Skivington
Author: Lynsay Matthews
Author: Sharon Anne Simpson
Author: Peter Craig
Author: Janis Baird ORCID iD
Author: Jane M. Blazeby
Author: Kathleen Anne Boyd
Author: Neil Craig
Author: David French
Author: Emma McIntosh
Author: Mark Petticrew
Author: Jo Rycroft-Malone
Author: Martin White
Author: Laurence Moore

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×