CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 331Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adapting evidence-informed complex population health interventions for new contexts: a systematic review of guidance

Open access
Movsisyan, A., Arnold, L., Evans, R., Hallingberg, B., Moore, G., O’Cathain, A., Pfadenhauer, L. M., Segrott, J., Rehfuess, E.·2019·Implementation Science
DOI 10.1186/s13012-019-0956-5PMC PMC6918624
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Adapting interventions that have worked elsewhere can save resources associated with developing new interventions for each specific context. While a developing body of evidence shows benefits of adapted interventions compared with interventions transported without adaptation, there are also examples of interventions which have been extensively adapted, yet have not worked in the new context. Decisions on when, to what extent, and how to adapt interventions therefore are not straightforward, particularly when conceptualising intervention effects as contingent upon contextual interactions in complex systems. No guidance currently addresses these questions comprehensively. To inform development of an overarching guidance on adaptation of complex population health interventions, this systematic review synthesises the content of the existing guidance papers. Methods: We searched for papers published between January 2000 and October 2018 in 7 bibliographic databases. We used citation tracking and contacted authors and experts to locate further papers. We double screened all the identified records. We extracted data into the following categories: descriptive information, key concepts and definitions, rationale for adaptation, aspects of adaptation, process of adaptation, evaluating and reporting adapted interventions. Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers, and retrieved data were synthesised thematically within pre-specified and emergent categories. Results: We retrieved 6694 unique records. Thirty-eight papers were included in the review representing 35 sources of guidance. Most papers were developed in the USA in the context of implementing evidence-informed interventions among different population groups within the country, such as minority populations. We found much agreement on how the papers defined key concepts, aims, and procedures of adaptation, including involvement of key stakeholders, but also identified gaps in scope, conceptualisation, and operationalisation in several categories. Conclusions: Our review found limitations that should be addressed in future guidance on adaptation . Specifically, future guidance needs to be reflective of adaptations in the context of transferring interventions across countries, including macro- (e.g. national-) level interventions, better theorise the role of intervention mechanisms and contextual interactions in the replicability of effects and accordingly conceptualise key concepts, such as fidelity to intervention functions, and finally, suggest evidence-informed strategies for adaptation re-evaluation and reporting. Trial registration: PROSPERO 2018, CRD42018112714 .

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13012-019-0956-5

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Systematic review flow diagram
Fig. 1 Systematic review flow diagramCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Overview of phases and steps in the process of adaptation
Fig. 2 Overview of phases and steps in the process of adaptationCC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Pawon R, Tilley N. Realist evaluation. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 1997.
  2. Bartholomew EL, Highfield L, Hartman MA, Mullen PD, Leerlooijer JN. Using intervention mapping to adapt evidence-based interventions. In: Bartholomew LKE, Markham CM, Ruiter RAC, Fernández ME, Kok Gund Parcel GS. (Hg.): Planning health promotion programs. An intervention mapping approach. p. 597–649. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2016.
  3. Backer T. Finding the balance: program fidelity and adaptation in substance abuse prevention: a state-of-the-art review. Rockville: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); 2002.
  4. O’Cathain A, Croot L, Duncan E, Rousseau N, Sworn K, Turner KM, et al. Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e029954. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 331

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Movsisyan, A., Arnold, L., Evans, R., Hallingberg, B., Moore, G., O’Cathain, A., Pfadenhauer, L. M., Segrott, J., & Rehfuess, E.
Affiliations
  • Institut für Medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie (DE)
  • Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (GB)
  • Cardiff Metropolitan University (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Movsisyan, A.
ORCID
Venue
Implementation Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-12
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
105-105
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13012-019-0956-5
PMC
PMC6918624
OpenAlex
W2995364571
Cited by
331
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 22
FWCI
6.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Cardiff Metropolitan Research Repository (Cardiff Metropolitan University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/R013357/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
intervention adaptation, evidence-informed interventions, adaptation guidance, contextual adaptation, intervention fidelity, intervention mechanisms, context-aware interaction, stakeholder engagement, minority groups
MeSH terms
Population Health, Delivery of Health Care, Health Plan Implementation, Health Promotion, Humans, Evidence-Based Medicine

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