Proposed criteria for reporting the development and evaluation of complex interventions in healthcare (CReDECI): guideline development
Section snippets
Background
The majority of interventions in the field of nursing as well as medicine comprise more than a single component and is of complex nature including a number of components, acting either independently or inter-dependently (Craig et al., 2008b). Complex interventions have gathered increasing awareness in nursing science. Several articles explicitly outlining their intervention as complex have been published recently (e.g. Faes et al., 2011). Methodological papers on the development and evaluation
Frameworks for the development and evaluation of complex interventions
In 2000, the British Medical Research Council (MRC) firstly published a framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions, aiming to provide guidance for researchers in recognising methodological challenges (Campbell et al., 2000). The MRC framework has been highly influential. It has, however, been criticized for linearity of increasing evidence, lack of methodological guidance, and neglect of social, political and geographical contexts in which complex interventions are
Reporting of the development and evaluation of complex interventions in healthcare
The updated version of the MRC framework (Craig et al., 2008a) emphasises high quality reporting as an important element at each stage of the research process. In a recently published systematic review, we evaluated the effects of interventions aimed to reduce and prevent the use of physical restraints in geriatric long-term care (Möhler et al., 2011). All interventions included were of complex nature, offering educational programmes and additional components. Reporting of the development and
The need for a reporting statement
The MRC framework recommends the adherence to reporting statements like CONSORT for randomised-controlled trials as a prerequisite of transparent reporting of complex interventions (Craig et al., 2008a). Available reporting statements are, however, not specifically addressing all relevant criteria for reporting on complex interventions’ development and evaluation (Armstrong et al., 2008, Mayo-Wilson, 2007). A statement by the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (
Development of the criteria list
Based on a systematic literature search (PubMed, June 2010), we identified publications on complex interventions’ methodology. For the development of the criteria list, the MRC framework was used as main source of information (Craig et al., 2008a, Craig et al., 2008b) since it contains the most relevant methodological aspects discussed for the development and evaluation of complex interventions. From these publications, all information on relevant aspects for reporting the development and
The criteria list
First stage – Development
- Item 1:
Description of the intervention's underlying theoretical considerations (Craig et al., 2008a, Michie et al., 2009, van Meijel et al., 2004).
Explanation: The theoretical basis of the intervention should be clearly stated. This includes the theory on which the intervention is founded as well as, if available, empirical evidence from studies in different settings or countries.
Example:
- •
The educational programme was developed based on the Social Learning Theory (Ref).
- •
The
- •
Discussion
The proposed criteria list represents a literature-based and expert reviewed suggestion, defining indispensable elements for high quality reporting of the development and evaluation of complex interventions. This could be the basis for the development of a reporting statement.
In contrast to other reporting statements, we have not arranged items in categories referring to sections of a publication (title, abstract, etc.), but in stages of the development and evaluation process of complex
Conclusion
An increasing number of publications on methodological issues of the development and evaluation of complex interventions as well as studies referring to the MRC framework document the relevance of this topic in nursing and health care science. Our criteria list comprises a minimum standard for transparent and comprehensive reporting of complex interventions, which is considered highly relevant for both authors and editors. We invite the scientific community to critically appraise the criteria
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the contributions of Ingrid Mühlhauser, Jan Hamers, and Matthias Lenz by reviewing the criteria list.
Conflicts of interest
None declared.
Funding
The paper was part of a project which has been funded by the Ministry of Education and Research, Germany (preparation of a systematic review on physical restraint reduction approaches). The sponsor was not involved in the planning, performance or publication of this work.
Ethical approval
None.
References (28)
- et al.
Multifactorial fall prevention for pairs of frail community-dwelling older fallers and their informal caregivers: a dead end for complex interventions in the frailest fallers
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
(2011) - et al.
Complex interventions and nursing: looking through a new lens at nursing research
International Journal of Nursing Studies
(2011) - et al.
Do educational interventions improve nurses’ clinical decision making and judgement? A systematic review
International Journal of Nursing Studies
(2011) - et al.
Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT
Journal of Public Health
(2008) Methodological issues in evaluating complex healthcare interventions
Journal of Advanced Nursing
(2006)- et al.
On the problems of mixing RCTs with qualitative research: the case of the MRC framework for the evaluation of complex healthcare interventions
Journal of Research in Nursing
(2010) - et al.
Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration
Annals of Internal Medicine
(2008) - et al.
Development and evaluation of complex interventions in health services research: case study of the Southampton heart integrated care project (SHIP)
British Medical Journal
(1999) - et al.
Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
British Medical Journal
(2000) - et al.
Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care
British Medical Journal
(2007)
Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance
British Medical Journal
Reviewing evidence on complex social interventions: appraising implementation in systematic reviews of the health effects of organisational-level workplace interventions
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomised trial be?
British Medical Journal
Cited by (85)
The development and evaluation of a web-based complex intervention: The caring for couples coping with colorectal cancer “4Cs: CRC” program
2022, Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology NursingCitation Excerpt :In addition, it is worth noting that the online dyadic learning sessions module content was designed according to each domain described in the P-LLCF.26 Thus, researchers should be aware of the significance of a theoretical framework that not only helps them understand relevant study concepts, but also guides research development.49 The results of the qualitative process evaluation provide important evidence for developing a more effective intervention program for couples facing CRC.
Evidence-based interventions and nurse-sensitive outcomes in district nursing care: A systematic review
2021, International Journal of Nursing Studies AdvancesUnravelling complex primary-care programs to maintain independent living in older people: a systematic overview
2018, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :To systematically unravel the obtained data and compare it with the best practices promoted in the literature, an itemized list was developed. First, items on transparent reporting [7–11,25], process evaluations [26–30] and guiding frameworks [1,6] were obtained from the literature. Second, the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions was used as a guide to evaluate the content and methodology of the included proactive primary-care programs.
Cluster-randomized controlled trials evaluating complex interventions in general practices are mostly ineffective: a systematic review
2018, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology