Jeanne-Marie Guise1, Christine Chang2, Meera Viswanathan3, Susan Glick4, Jonathan Treadwell5, Craig A Umscheid5, Evelyn Whitlock6, Rongwei Fu7, Elise Berliner2, Robin Paynter7, Johanna Anderson7, Pua Motu'apuaka7, Tom Trikalinos8. 1. Scientific Resource Center for the AHRQ Effective Health Care Program, Portland VA Research Foundation, 3710 SW US Veterans Hospital Road, Mailcode R&D71, Portland, OR 97239, USA. Electronic address: guisej@ohsu.edu. 2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850, USA. 3. RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center, 3400 E. Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA. 4. Blue Cross Blue Shield Evidence-based Practice Center, 225 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60601, USA. 5. ECRI-Penn Evidence-based Practice Center, 5200 Butler Pike, Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462, USA. 6. Kaiser Evidence-based Practice Center, 3800 N. Interstate Ave., Portland, OR 97227, USA. 7. Scientific Resource Center for the AHRQ Effective Health Care Program, Portland VA Research Foundation, 3710 SW US Veterans Hospital Road, Mailcode R&D71, Portland, OR 97239, USA. 8. Brown Evidence-based Practice Center, Brown University, 1 Prospect Street, Providence, RI 02912, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods white paper was to outline approaches to conducting systematic reviews of complex multicomponent health care interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a literature scan and conducted semistructured interviews with international experts who conduct research or systematic reviews of complex multicomponent interventions (CMCIs) or organizational leaders who implement CMCIs in health care. RESULTS: Challenges identified include lack of consistent terminology for such interventions (eg, complex, multicomponent, multidimensional, multifactorial); a wide range of approaches used to frame the review, from grouping interventions by common features to using more theoretical approaches; decisions regarding whether and how to quantitatively analyze the interventions, from holistic to individual component analytic approaches; and incomplete and inconsistent reporting of elements critical to understanding the success and impact of multicomponent interventions, such as methods used for implementation the context in which interventions are implemented. CONCLUSION: We provide a framework for the spectrum of conceptual and analytic approaches to synthesizing studies of multicomponent interventions and an initial list of critical reporting elements for such studies. This information is intended to help systematic reviewers understand the options and tradeoffs available for such reviews.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods white paper was to outline approaches to conducting systematic reviews of complex multicomponent health care interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a literature scan and conducted semistructured interviews with international experts who conduct research or systematic reviews of complex multicomponent interventions (CMCIs) or organizational leaders who implement CMCIs in health care. RESULTS: Challenges identified include lack of consistent terminology for such interventions (eg, complex, multicomponent, multidimensional, multifactorial); a wide range of approaches used to frame the review, from grouping interventions by common features to using more theoretical approaches; decisions regarding whether and how to quantitatively analyze the interventions, from holistic to individual component analytic approaches; and incomplete and inconsistent reporting of elements critical to understanding the success and impact of multicomponent interventions, such as methods used for implementation the context in which interventions are implemented. CONCLUSION: We provide a framework for the spectrum of conceptual and analytic approaches to synthesizing studies of multicomponent interventions and an initial list of critical reporting elements for such studies. This information is intended to help systematic reviewers understand the options and tradeoffs available for such reviews.
Authors: Jennifer H Han; Nancy Sullivan; Brian F Leas; David A Pegues; Janice L Kaczmarek; Craig A Umscheid Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Francisco Represas-Carrera; Sabela Couso-Viana; Fátima Méndez-López; Bárbara Masluk; Rosa Magallón-Botaya; Jose I Recio-Rodríguez; Haizea Pombo; Alfonso Leiva-Rus; Montserrat Gil-Girbau; Emma Motrico; Ruth Martí-Lluch; Francisco Gude; Ana Clavería Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Sara N Bleich; Cheryl Sherrod; Anne Chiang; Cynthia Boyd; Jennifer Wolff; Eva DuGoff; Eva Chang; Claudia Salzberg; Keely Anderson; Bruce Leff; Gerard Anderson Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 2.830