The DOI matches its Crossref record; 179 of the 179 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Challenges to evaluating complex interventions: a content analysis of published papers
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: There is continuing interest among practitioners, policymakers and researchers in the evaluation of complex interventions stemming from the need to further develop the evidence base on the effectiveness of healthcare and public health interventions, and an awareness that evaluation becomes more challenging if interventions are complex.We undertook an analysis of published journal articles in order to identify aspects of complexity described by writers, the fields in which complex interventions are being evaluated and the challenges experienced in design, implementation and evaluation. This paper outlines the findings of this documentary analysis. METHODS: The PubMed electronic database was searched for the ten year period, January 2002 to December 2011, using the term "complex intervention*" in the title and/or abstract of a paper. We extracted text from papers to a table and carried out a thematic analysis to identify authors' descriptions of challenges faced in developing, implementing and evaluating complex interventions. RESULTS: The search resulted in a sample of 221 papers of which full text of 216 was obtained and 207 were included in the analysis. The 207 papers broadly cover clinical, public health and methodological topics. Challenges described included the content and standardisation of interventions, the impact of the people involved (staff and patients), the organisational context of implementation, the development of outcome measures, and evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of these papers suggests that more detailed reporting of information on outcomes, context and intervention is required for complex interventions. Future revisions to reporting guidelines for both primary and secondary research may need to take aspects of complexity into account to enhance their value to both researchers and users of research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1655 · Cited by 10,995
Self-citationCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration
Higgins, J., Green, S. R., & Higgins, J. (2008) · Cited by 5,544
Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
Campbell, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 · Cited by 3,474 · cited 1×
“’s paper, ‘Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health’ [8] which accompanied the 2000 guidance and 12.”
BackgroundPope, C., & Mays, N. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6996.42 · Cited by 2,336
Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance
Craig, P., Dieppe, P. A., MacIntyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. P. (2006) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 1,878
Self-citationMurray, E., Treweek, S., Pope, C., MacFarlane, A., Ballini, L., Dowrick, C., Finch, T., Kennedy, A., Mair, F., O'Donnell, C., et al. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-63 · Cited by 1,478
Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care
Campbell, N. C., Murray, E., Darbyshire, J., Emery, J., Farmer, A., Griffiths, F., Guthrie, B., Lester, H., Wilson, P., & Kinmonth, A. L. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39108.379965.be · Cited by 1,331
Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions
Oakley, A., Strange, V., Bonell, C., Allen, E., & Stephenson, J. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7538.413 · Cited by 1,247
Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be?
Hawe, P., Shiell, A., & Riley, T. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1561 · Cited by 1,244
O'Neil, J. H. (1995) · North East Linguistics Society · Cited by 781
Cited by
Lessons from Complex Interventions to Improve Health
Hawe, P. (2015) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114421 · Cited by 607
Dynamic information technology capability: Concept definition and framework development
Li, T. (., & Chan, Y. E. (2019) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2019.101575 · Cited by 151
Tang, M. Y., Smith, D. M., Mc Sharry, J., Hann, M., & French, D. P. (2019) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1093/abm/kay090 · Cited by 141
Meta-Analysis of Complex Interventions
Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Grant, S. (2018) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014112 · Cited by 62
Non-pharmacological interventions for sleep disturbances in people with dementia
Wilfling, D., Calo, S., Dichter, M. N., Meyer, G., Möhler, R., & Köpke, S. (2023) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011881.pub2 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Datta, J., & Petticrew, M.
- Venue
- BMC Public Health
- Published
- 2013-06-11
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 568-568
- ISSN
- 1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2144913786
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 179
- FWCI
- 28.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Challenges to evaluating complex interventions: a content analysis of published papers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2458-13-568
- The paper
- Datta, J., & Petticrew, M. (2013). Challenges to evaluating complex interventions: a content analysis of published papers. BMC Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-568
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.