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
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/148059
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
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 |