One connector, four scholarly indexes, real DOIs and legal free PDFs. Works in Claude and ChatGPT.
Paste it into Claude or ChatGPT as a custom connector. 3-day free trial.
Kathryn Skivington, Lynsay Matthews, Sharon Anne Simpson, Peter Craig, Janis Baird, Jane M. Blazeby, Kathleen Boyd, Neil J. Craig, David French, Emma McIntosh and 4 more
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. FUNDING: This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).
Formatted from the source metadata, not typed by hand. For a whole reference list, use the citation generator or ask your assistant through Find Research.
Skivington, K., Matthews, L., Simpson, S. A., Craig, P., Baird, J., Blazeby, J. M., Boyd, K., Craig, N. J., French, D., McIntosh, E., Petticrew, M. P., Rycroft‐Malone, J., White, M. J., & Moore, L. (2021). Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update. Health Technology Assessment, 25(57), 1–132. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25570
Skivington, Kathryn, et al. "Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update." Health Technology Assessment, vol. 25, no. 57, 2021, pp. 1–132, https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25570.
Skivington, Kathryn, Lynsay Matthews, Sharon Anne Simpson, Peter Craig, Janis Baird, Jane M. Blazeby, Kathleen Boyd, et al. "Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update." Health Technology Assessment 25, no. 57 (2021): 1–132. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25570.
Skivington K., Matthews L., Simpson S. A. [и др.] Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update // Health Technology Assessment. — 2021. — Vol. 25, № 57. — P. 1–132. — URL: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25570
@article{skivington2021framework,
title = {{Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update}},
author = {Kathryn Skivington and Lynsay Matthews and Sharon Anne Simpson and Peter Craig and Janis Baird and Jane M. Blazeby and Kathleen Boyd and Neil J. Craig and David French and Emma McIntosh and Mark Patrick Petticrew and Jo Rycroft‐Malone and Martin J. White and Laurence Moore},
journal = {Health Technology Assessment},
year = {2021},
volume = {25},
number = {57},
pages = {1--132},
doi = {10.3310/hta25570},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25570}
}TY - JOUR AU - Skivington, Kathryn AU - Matthews, Lynsay AU - Simpson, Sharon Anne AU - Craig, Peter AU - Baird, Janis AU - Blazeby, Jane M. AU - Boyd, Kathleen AU - Craig, Neil J. AU - French, David AU - McIntosh, Emma AU - Petticrew, Mark Patrick AU - Rycroft‐Malone, Jo AU - White, Martin J. AU - Moore, Laurence TI - Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update JO - Health Technology Assessment VL - 25 IS - 57 SP - 1 EP - 132 PY - 2021 DA - 2021/09/01 DO - 10.3310/hta25570 UR - https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25570 ER -
Add Find Research to Claude or ChatGPT and ask in plain language. The assistant reads this record, finds the papers around it and cites only what it actually found:
Setup takes about a minute: add the connector, then start the free trial.
Record from OpenAlex; open-access location from Unpaywall and the indexes. Find Research links only to legal copies.