Examining Intervention Design: Lessons from the Development of Eight Related Malaria Health Care Intervention Studies

Evaluating complex interventions in context: systematic, meta-narrative review of case study approaches

BACKGROUND

There is a growing need for methods that acknowledge and successfully capture the dynamic interaction between context and implementation of complex interventions. Case study research has the potential to provide such understanding, enabling in-depth investigation of the particularities of phenomena. However, there is limited guidance on how and when to best use different case study research approaches when evaluating complex interventions. This study aimed to review and synthesise the literature on case study research across relevant disciplines, and determine relevance to the study of contextual influences on complex interventions in health systems and public health research.

METHODS

Systematic meta-narrative review of the literature comprising (i) a scoping review of seminal texts (n = 60) on case study methodology and on context, complexity and interventions, (ii) detailed review of empirical literature on case study, context and complex interventions (n = 71), and (iii) identifying and reviewing 'hybrid papers' (n = 8) focused on the merits and challenges of case study in the evaluation of complex interventions.

RESULTS

We identified four broad (and to some extent overlapping) research traditions, all using case study in a slightly different way and with different goals: 1) developing and testing complex interventions in healthcare; 2) analysing change in organisations; 3) undertaking realist evaluations; 4) studying complex change naturalistically. Each tradition conceptualised context differently-respectively as the backdrop to, or factors impacting on, the intervention; sets of interacting conditions and relationships; circumstances triggering intervention mechanisms; and socially structured practices. Overall, these traditions drew on a small number of case study methodologists and disciplines. Few studies problematised the nature and boundaries of 'the case' and 'context' or considered the implications of such conceptualisations for methods and knowledge production.

CONCLUSIONS

Case study research on complex interventions in healthcare draws on a number of different research traditions, each with different epistemological and methodological preferences. The approach used and consequences for knowledge produced often remains implicit. This has implications for how researchers, practitioners and decision makers understand, implement and evaluate complex interventions in different settings. Deeper engagement with case study research as a methodology is strongly recommended.

Accounting for health inequities in the design of contact tracing interventions: A rapid review

Background

Contact tracing has been a central control measure for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission. However, without consideration of the needs of specific populations, public health interventions can exacerbate health inequities.

Aim

The purpose of this rapid review was to determine if and how health inequities were included in the design of contact tracing interventions in epidemic settings.

Methods

A search of the electronic databases MEDLINE and Web of Science was conducted. The following inclusion criteria were applied for article selection: (1) described the design of contact tracing interventions, (2) published between 2013 and 2020 in English, French, Spanish, Chinese, or Portuguese, (3) and included at least 50% of empiricism, according to the Automated Classifier of Texts on Scientific Studies (ATCER) tool. Various tools were used to extract data.

Results

Following screening of the titles and abstracts of 230 articles, 39 met the inclusion criteria. Only seven references were retained after full text review. None of the selected studies considered health inequities in the design of contact tracing interventions.

Conclusions

The use of tools/concepts for incorporating health inequities, such as the REFLEX-ISS tool, and ‘proportionate universalism’ when designing contact tracing interventions, would enable practitioners, decision-makers, and researchers to better consider health inequities.

An interdisciplinary mixed-methods approach to developing antimicrobial stewardship interventions: Protocol for the Preserving Antibiotics through Safe Stewardship (PASS) Research Programme

Behaviour change is key to combating antimicrobial resistance. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes promote and monitor judicious antibiotic use, but there is little consideration of behavioural and social influences when designing interventions.  We outline a programme of research which aims to co-design AMS interventions across healthcare settings, by integrating data-science, evidence- synthesis, behavioural-science and user-centred design. The project includes three work-packages (WP): WP1 (Identifying patterns of prescribing):  analysis of electronic health-records to identify prescribing patterns in care-homes, primary-care, and secondary-care. An online survey will investigate consulting/antibiotic-seeking behaviours in members of the public. WP2 (Barriers and enablers to prescribing in practice): Semi-structured interviews and observations of practice to identify barriers/enablers to prescribing, influences on antibiotic-seeking behaviour and the social/contextual factors underpinning prescribing. Systematic reviews of AMS interventions to identify the components of existing interventions associated with effectiveness. Design workshops to identify constraints influencing the form of the intervention. Interviews conducted with healthcare-professionals in community pharmacies, care-homes, primary-, and secondary-care and with members of the public. Topic guides and analysis based on the Theoretical Domains Framework.  Observations conducted in care-homes, primary and secondary-care with analysis drawing on grounded theory.  Systematic reviews of interventions in each setting will be conducted, and interventions described using the Behaviour Change Technique taxonomy v1. Design workshops in care-homes, primary-, and secondary care. WP3 (Co-production of interventions and dissemination). Findings will be integrated to identify opportunities for interventions, and assess whether existing interventions target influences on antibiotic use. Stakeholder panels will be assembled to co-design and refine interventions in each setting, applying the Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects and Equity (APEASE) criteria to prioritise candidate interventions.  Outputs will inform development of new AMS interventions and/or optimisation of existing interventions.  We will also develop web-resources for stakeholders providing analyses of antibiotic prescribing patterns, prescribing behaviours, and evidence reviews.

Using discrete choice experiments to inform the design of complex interventions

BACKGROUND

Complex health interventions must incorporate user preferences to maximize their potential effectiveness. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) quantify the strength of user preferences and identify preference heterogeneity across users. We present the process of using a DCE to supplement conventional qualitative formative research in the design of a demand creation intervention for voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) to prevent HIV in Tanzania.

METHODS

The VMMC intervention was designed within a 3-month formative phase. In-depth interviews (n = 30) and participatory group discussions (n = 20) sought to identify broad setting-specific barriers to and facilitators of VMMC among adult men. Qualitative results informed the DCE development, identifying the role of female partners, service providers' attitudes and social stigma. A DCE among 325 men in Njombe and Tabora, Tanzania, subsequently measured preferences for modifiable VMMC service characteristics. The final VMMC demand creation intervention design drew jointly on the qualitative and DCE findings.

RESULTS

While the qualitative research informed the community mobilization intervention, the DCE guided the specific VMMC service configuration. The significant positive utilities (u) for availability of partner counselling (u = 0.43, p < 0.01) and age-separated waiting areas (u = 0.21, p < 0.05) led to the provision of community information booths for partners and provision of age-separated waiting areas. The strong disutility of female healthcare providers (u = - 0.24, p < 0.01) led to re-training all providers on client-friendliness.

CONCLUSION

This is, to our knowledge, the first study documenting how user preferences from DCEs can directly inform the design of a complex intervention. The use of DCEs as formative research may help increase user uptake and adherence to complex interventions.