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

Autores
Limbani, Felix; Goudge, Jane; Joshi, Rohina; Maar, Marion A.; Miranda, J. Jaime; Oldenburg, Brian; Parker, Gary; Pesantes, Maria Amalia; Riddell, Michaela A.; Salam, Abdul; Trieu, Kathy; Thrift, Amanda G.; Van Olmen, Josefien; Vedanthan, Rajesh; Webster, Ruth; Yeates, Karen; Webster, Jacqui; Irazola, Vilma
Año de publicación
2019
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
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.
Fil: Limbani, Felix. University of the Witwatersrand; Sudáfrica
Fil: Goudge, Jane. University of the Witwatersrand; Sudáfrica
Fil: Joshi, Rohina. University Of Technology Sydney.; Australia
Fil: Maar, Marion A.. University of New South Wales; Australia
Fil: Miranda, J. Jaime. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; Perú
Fil: Oldenburg, Brian. University of Melbourne; Australia
Fil: Parker, Gary. University College London; Estados Unidos
Fil: Pesantes, Maria Amalia. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; Perú
Fil: Riddell, Michaela A.. School Of Clinical Sciences At Monash Health; Australia
Fil: Salam, Abdul. University of New South Wales; Australia
Fil: Trieu, Kathy. University Of Technology Sydney.; Australia
Fil: Thrift, Amanda G.. School Of Clinical Sciences At Monash Health; Australia
Fil: Van Olmen, Josefien. Bernhard Nocht Institute For Tropical Medicine.; Alemania
Fil: Vedanthan, Rajesh. University of New York; Estados Unidos
Fil: Webster, Ruth. The George Institute For Global Health; Australia
Fil: Yeates, Karen. Queens University; Canadá
Fil: Webster, Jacqui. University Of Technology Sydney.; Australia
Fil: Irazola, Vilma. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina
Materia
COMPLEX INTERVENTIONS
HYPERTENSION
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE
LOW AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES
MIXED-METHODS
PROCESS EVALUATION
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/148059

id CONICETDig_22f6a14af59a9bedc8f41d8895c25a47
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/148059
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countriesLimbani, FelixGoudge, JaneJoshi, RohinaMaar, Marion A.Miranda, J. JaimeOldenburg, BrianParker, GaryPesantes, Maria AmaliaRiddell, Michaela A.Salam, AbdulTrieu, KathyThrift, Amanda G.Van Olmen, JosefienVedanthan, RajeshWebster, RuthYeates, KarenWebster, JacquiIrazola, VilmaCOMPLEX INTERVENTIONSHYPERTENSIONIMPLEMENTATION SCIENCELOW AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIESMIXED-METHODSPROCESS EVALUATIONhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3Background: 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.Fil: Limbani, Felix. University of the Witwatersrand; SudáfricaFil: Goudge, Jane. University of the Witwatersrand; SudáfricaFil: Joshi, Rohina. University Of Technology Sydney.; AustraliaFil: Maar, Marion A.. University of New South Wales; AustraliaFil: Miranda, J. Jaime. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; PerúFil: Oldenburg, Brian. University of Melbourne; AustraliaFil: Parker, Gary. University College London; Estados UnidosFil: Pesantes, Maria Amalia. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; PerúFil: Riddell, Michaela A.. School Of Clinical Sciences At Monash Health; AustraliaFil: Salam, Abdul. University of New South Wales; AustraliaFil: Trieu, Kathy. University Of Technology Sydney.; AustraliaFil: Thrift, Amanda G.. School Of Clinical Sciences At Monash Health; AustraliaFil: Van Olmen, Josefien. Bernhard Nocht Institute For Tropical Medicine.; AlemaniaFil: Vedanthan, Rajesh. University of New York; Estados UnidosFil: Webster, Ruth. The George Institute For Global Health; AustraliaFil: Yeates, Karen. Queens University; CanadáFil: Webster, Jacqui. University Of Technology Sydney.; AustraliaFil: Irazola, Vilma. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaBioMed Central2019-07info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/148059Limbani, Felix; Goudge, Jane; Joshi, Rohina; Maar, Marion A.; Miranda, J. Jaime; et al.; Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries; BioMed Central; BMC Public Health; 19; 1; 7-2019; 1-111471-2458CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7261-8info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1186/s12889-019-7261-8info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:37:26Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/148059instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:37:26.365CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries
title Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries
spellingShingle Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries
Limbani, Felix
COMPLEX INTERVENTIONS
HYPERTENSION
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE
LOW AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES
MIXED-METHODS
PROCESS EVALUATION
title_short Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries
title_full Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries
title_fullStr Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries
title_full_unstemmed Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries
title_sort Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Limbani, Felix
Goudge, Jane
Joshi, Rohina
Maar, Marion A.
Miranda, J. Jaime
Oldenburg, Brian
Parker, Gary
Pesantes, Maria Amalia
Riddell, Michaela A.
Salam, Abdul
Trieu, Kathy
Thrift, Amanda G.
Van Olmen, Josefien
Vedanthan, Rajesh
Webster, Ruth
Yeates, Karen
Webster, Jacqui
Irazola, Vilma
author Limbani, Felix
author_facet Limbani, Felix
Goudge, Jane
Joshi, Rohina
Maar, Marion A.
Miranda, J. Jaime
Oldenburg, Brian
Parker, Gary
Pesantes, Maria Amalia
Riddell, Michaela A.
Salam, Abdul
Trieu, Kathy
Thrift, Amanda G.
Van Olmen, Josefien
Vedanthan, Rajesh
Webster, Ruth
Yeates, Karen
Webster, Jacqui
Irazola, Vilma
author_role author
author2 Goudge, Jane
Joshi, Rohina
Maar, Marion A.
Miranda, J. Jaime
Oldenburg, Brian
Parker, Gary
Pesantes, Maria Amalia
Riddell, Michaela A.
Salam, Abdul
Trieu, Kathy
Thrift, Amanda G.
Van Olmen, Josefien
Vedanthan, Rajesh
Webster, Ruth
Yeates, Karen
Webster, Jacqui
Irazola, Vilma
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv COMPLEX INTERVENTIONS
HYPERTENSION
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE
LOW AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES
MIXED-METHODS
PROCESS EVALUATION
topic COMPLEX INTERVENTIONS
HYPERTENSION
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE
LOW AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES
MIXED-METHODS
PROCESS EVALUATION
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv 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.
Fil: Limbani, Felix. University of the Witwatersrand; Sudáfrica
Fil: Goudge, Jane. University of the Witwatersrand; Sudáfrica
Fil: Joshi, Rohina. University Of Technology Sydney.; Australia
Fil: Maar, Marion A.. University of New South Wales; Australia
Fil: Miranda, J. Jaime. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; Perú
Fil: Oldenburg, Brian. University of Melbourne; Australia
Fil: Parker, Gary. University College London; Estados Unidos
Fil: Pesantes, Maria Amalia. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; Perú
Fil: Riddell, Michaela A.. School Of Clinical Sciences At Monash Health; Australia
Fil: Salam, Abdul. University of New South Wales; Australia
Fil: Trieu, Kathy. University Of Technology Sydney.; Australia
Fil: Thrift, Amanda G.. School Of Clinical Sciences At Monash Health; Australia
Fil: Van Olmen, Josefien. Bernhard Nocht Institute For Tropical Medicine.; Alemania
Fil: Vedanthan, Rajesh. University of New York; Estados Unidos
Fil: Webster, Ruth. The George Institute For Global Health; Australia
Fil: Yeates, Karen. Queens University; Canadá
Fil: Webster, Jacqui. University Of Technology Sydney.; Australia
Fil: Irazola, Vilma. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina
description 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.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-07
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/148059
Limbani, Felix; Goudge, Jane; Joshi, Rohina; Maar, Marion A.; Miranda, J. Jaime; et al.; Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries; BioMed Central; BMC Public Health; 19; 1; 7-2019; 1-11
1471-2458
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/148059
identifier_str_mv Limbani, Felix; Goudge, Jane; Joshi, Rohina; Maar, Marion A.; Miranda, J. Jaime; et al.; Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries; BioMed Central; BMC Public Health; 19; 1; 7-2019; 1-11
1471-2458
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7261-8
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1186/s12889-019-7261-8
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv BioMed Central
publisher.none.fl_str_mv BioMed Central
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844614394903789568
score 13.070432