» Articles » PMID: 15310806

Methods for Exploring Implementation Variation and Local Context Within a Cluster Randomised Community Intervention Trial

Overview
Specialty Health Services
Date 2004 Aug 18
PMID 15310806
Citations 117
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Insignificant or modest findings in intervention trials may be attributable to poorly designed or theorised interventions, poorly implemented interventions, or inadequate evaluation methods. The pre-existing context may also account for the effects observed. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is outlined that will permit the determination of how context level factors might modify intervention effectiveness, within a cluster randomised community intervention trial to promote the health of mothers with new babies. The methods include written and oral narratives, key informant interviews, impact logs, and inter-organisational network analyses. Context level factors, which may affect intervention uptake, success, and sustainability are the density of inter-organisational ties within communities at the start of the intervention, the centrality of the primary care agencies expected to take a lead with the intervention, the extent of context-level adaptation of the intervention, and the amount of local resources contributed by the participating agencies. Investigation of how intervention effects are modified by context is a new methodological frontier in community intervention trial research.

Citing Articles

Your Teeth, You Are in Control: A Process Evaluation of the Implementation of a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Intervention for Reducing Child Dental Anxiety.

Kettle J, Porritt J, Baker S, Rodd H, Cross E, Marshman Z Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2025; 53(2):224-234.

PMID: 39791199 PMC: 11892546. DOI: 10.1111/cdoe.13025.


Cultural and Contextual Adaptation of Digital Health Interventions: Narrative Review.

Naderbagi A, Loblay V, Zahed I, Ekambareshwar M, Poulsen A, Song Y J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26:e55130.

PMID: 38980719 PMC: 11267096. DOI: 10.2196/55130.


Co-construct, implement and evaluate a multi-level intervention to prevent a sedentary lifestyle in children-Study protocol of the CIPRES study.

Carayol M, Laujac S, Cholley-Gomez M, Franceschi J, Rozand A, Pallier L PLoS One. 2024; 19(5):e0302556.

PMID: 38722834 PMC: 11081347. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302556.


Lessons learned from implementation of four HIV self-testing (HIVST) distribution models in Zambia: applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to understand impact of contextual factors on implementation.

Simwinga M, Gwanu L, Hensen B, Sigande L, Mainga M, Phiri T BMC Infect Dis. 2024; 22(Suppl 1):977.

PMID: 38448832 PMC: 10916003. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-024-09168-5.


Situating implementation science (IS) in res(IS)tance: a conceptual frame toward the integration of scholarship from the black radical tradition.

Bradley C, Irie W, Geng E Front Public Health. 2024; 11:1286156.

PMID: 38274530 PMC: 10808293. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1286156.


References
1.
Francisco V, Paine A, Fawcett S . A methodology for monitoring and evaluating community health coalitions. Health Educ Res. 1993; 8(3):403-16. DOI: 10.1093/her/8.3.403. View

2.
Goodman R, Steckler A, Hoover S, Schwartz R . A critique of contemporary community health promotion approaches: based on a qualitative review of six programs in Maine. Am J Health Promot. 1992; 7(3):208-20. DOI: 10.4278/0890-1171-7.3.208. View

3.
Fortmann S, Flora J, Winkleby M, Schooler C, Taylor C, Farquhar J . Community intervention trials: reflections on the Stanford Five-City Project Experience. Am J Epidemiol. 1995; 142(6):576-86. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117678. View

4.
Israel B, Cummings K, Dignan M, Heaney C, Perales D, Simons-Morton B . Evaluation of health education programs: current assessment and future directions. Health Educ Q. 1995; 22(3):364-89. DOI: 10.1177/109019819402200308. View

5.
Stokols D . Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. Am J Health Promot. 1996; 10(4):282-98. DOI: 10.4278/0890-1171-10.4.282. View