DSpace Repository

Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries.

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Limbani, Felix
dc.contributor.author Goudge, Jane
dc.contributor.author Joshi, Rohina
dc.contributor.author Maar, Marion A.
dc.contributor.author Miranda, J. Jaime
dc.contributor.author Oldenburg, Brian
dc.contributor.author Parker, Gary
dc.contributor.author Pesantes, Maria Amalia
dc.contributor.author Riddell, Michaela A.
dc.contributor.author Salam, Abdul
dc.contributor.author Trieu, Kathy
dc.contributor.author Thrift, Amanda G.
dc.contributor.author Van Olmen, Josefien
dc.contributor.author Vedanthan, Rajesh
dc.contributor.author Webster, Ruth
dc.contributor.author Yeates, Karen
dc.contributor.author Webster, Jacqui
dc.date.accessioned 2019-08-08T15:23:44Z
dc.date.available 2019-08-08T15:23:44Z
dc.date.issued 2019
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12866/7128
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND: Process evaluation is increasingly recognized as an important component of effective implementation research and yet, there has been surprisingly little work to understand what constitutes best practice. Researchers use different methodologies describing causal pathways and understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in diverse contexts and settings. We report on challenges and lessons learned from undertaking process evaluation of seven hypertension intervention trials funded through the Global Alliance of Chronic Diseases (GACD). METHODS: Preliminary data collected from the GACD hypertension teams in 2015 were used to inform a template for data collection. Case study themes included: (1) description of the intervention, (2) objectives of the process evaluation, (3) methods including theoretical basis, (4) main findings of the study and the process evaluation, (5) implications for the project, policy and research practice and (6) lessons for future process evaluations. The information was summarized and reported descriptively and narratively and key lessons were identified. RESULTS: The case studies were from low- and middle-income countries and Indigenous communities in Canada. They were implementation research projects with intervention arm. Six theoretical approaches were used but most comprised of mixed-methods approaches. Each of the process evaluations generated findings on whether interventions were implemented with fidelity, the extent of capacity building, contextual factors and the extent to which relationships between researchers and community impacted on intervention implementation. The most important learning was that although process evaluation is time consuming, it enhances understanding of factors affecting implementation of complex interventions. The research highlighted the need to initiate process evaluations early on in the project, to help guide design of the intervention; and the importance of effective communication between researchers responsible for trial implementation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation. CONCLUSION: This research demonstrates the important role of process evaluation in understanding implementation process of complex interventions. This can help to highlight a broad range of system requirements such as new policies and capacity building to support implementation. Process evaluation is crucial in understanding contextual factors that may impact intervention implementation which is important in considering whether or not the intervention can be translated to other contexts. en_US
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher BioMed Central
dc.relation.ispartof urn:issn:1471-2458
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es
dc.subject Implementation Science en_US
dc.subject adult en_US
dc.subject Adult en_US
dc.subject Canada en_US
dc.subject clinical trial (topic) en_US
dc.subject Clinical Trials as Topic en_US
dc.subject Complex interventions en_US
dc.subject Developing Countries en_US
dc.subject developing country en_US
dc.subject female en_US
dc.subject Female en_US
dc.subject health care quality en_US
dc.subject human en_US
dc.subject Humans en_US
dc.subject hypertension en_US
dc.subject Hypertension en_US
dc.subject Implementation science en_US
dc.subject Implementation Science en_US
dc.subject Low and middle-income countries en_US
dc.subject male en_US
dc.subject Male en_US
dc.subject middle aged en_US
dc.subject Middle Aged en_US
dc.subject Mixed-methods en_US
dc.subject procedures en_US
dc.subject Process Assessment (Health Care) en_US
dc.subject Process Assessment (Health Care)/methods en_US
dc.subject Process evaluation en_US
dc.title Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries. en_US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.identifier.doi https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7261-8
dc.subject.ocde https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.00 es_PE
dc.subject.ocde https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.03.05


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account

Statistics