A Movsisyan1,2, L Arnold3,4, L Copeland5, R Evans5, H Littlecott5, G Moore5, A O'Cathain6, L Pfadenhauer3,4, J Segrott5,7, E Rehfuess3,4. 1. Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377, Munich, Germany. ani.movsisyan@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Pettenkofer School of Public Health, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377, Munich, Germany. ani.movsisyan@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de. 3. Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377, Munich, Germany. 4. Pettenkofer School of Public Health, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377, Munich, Germany. 5. Centre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, Wales, UK. 6. School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. 7. Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, 4th floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, Wales, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-informed population health interventions in new contexts often requires adaptations. While the need to adapt interventions to better fit new contexts is recognised, uncertainties remain regarding why and when to adapt (or not), and how to assess the benefits (or not) of adaptation. The ADAPT Study aims to develop comprehensive guidance on adaptation. This scoping review informs guidance development by mapping and exploring how adaptation has been undertaken in practice, in public health and health services research. METHODS: We searched seven databases from January 2000 and October 2018 to identify eligible studies for this scoping review and a related systematic review of adaptation guidance. We mapped the studies of adaptation by coding data from all eligible studies describing the methods, contexts, and interventions considered for adaptation. From this map, we selected a sample of studies for in-depth examination. Two reviewers extracted data independently into seven categories: description, key concepts, types, rationale, processes, evaluation methods, evaluation justification, and accounts of failures and successes. RESULTS: We retrieved 6694 unique records. From 429 records screened at full text, we identified 298 eligible studies for mapping and selected 28 studies for in-depth examination. The majority of studies in our map focused on micro- (i.e., individual-) level interventions (84%), related to transferring an intervention to a new population group within the same country (62%) and did not report using guidance (73%). Studies covered a range of topic areas, including health behaviour (24%), mental health (19%), sexual health (16%), and parenting and family-centred interventions (15%). Our in-depth analysis showed that adaptation is seen to save costs and time relative to developing a new intervention, and to enhance contextual relevance and cultural compatibility. It commonly follows a structured process and involves stakeholders to help with decisions on what to adapt, when, and how. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptation has been undertaken on a range of health topics and largely in line with existing guidance. Significant gaps relate to adaptation of macro- (e.g., national-) level interventions, consideration of programme theories, mechanisms and contexts (i.e., a functional view of interventions), nuances around stakeholder involvement, and evaluation of the adapted interventions. Registration Open Science Framework, 2019, osf.io/udzma.
BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-informed population health interventions in new contexts often requires adaptations. While the need to adapt interventions to better fit new contexts is recognised, uncertainties remain regarding why and when to adapt (or not), and how to assess the benefits (or not) of adaptation. The ADAPT Study aims to develop comprehensive guidance on adaptation. This scoping review informs guidance development by mapping and exploring how adaptation has been undertaken in practice, in public health and health services research. METHODS: We searched seven databases from January 2000 and October 2018 to identify eligible studies for this scoping review and a related systematic review of adaptation guidance. We mapped the studies of adaptation by coding data from all eligible studies describing the methods, contexts, and interventions considered for adaptation. From this map, we selected a sample of studies for in-depth examination. Two reviewers extracted data independently into seven categories: description, key concepts, types, rationale, processes, evaluation methods, evaluation justification, and accounts of failures and successes. RESULTS: We retrieved 6694 unique records. From 429 records screened at full text, we identified 298 eligible studies for mapping and selected 28 studies for in-depth examination. The majority of studies in our map focused on micro- (i.e., individual-) level interventions (84%), related to transferring an intervention to a new population group within the same country (62%) and did not report using guidance (73%). Studies covered a range of topic areas, including health behaviour (24%), mental health (19%), sexual health (16%), and parenting and family-centred interventions (15%). Our in-depth analysis showed that adaptation is seen to save costs and time relative to developing a new intervention, and to enhance contextual relevance and cultural compatibility. It commonly follows a structured process and involves stakeholders to help with decisions on what to adapt, when, and how. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptation has been undertaken on a range of health topics and largely in line with existing guidance. Significant gaps relate to adaptation of macro- (e.g., national-) level interventions, consideration of programme theories, mechanisms and contexts (i.e., a functional view of interventions), nuances around stakeholder involvement, and evaluation of the adapted interventions. Registration Open Science Framework, 2019, osf.io/udzma.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adaptation; Complex interventions; Complexity; Context; Evaluation; Evidence-based; Evidence-informed; Implementation; Population health; Systems thinking
Authors: Cam Escoffery; Erin Lebow-Skelley; Hallie Udelson; Elaine A Böing; Richard Wood; Maria E Fernandez; Patricia D Mullen Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Hilde Vandenhoudt; Kim S Miller; Juliet Ochura; Sarah C Wyckoff; Christopher O Obong'o; Nelson J Otwoma; Melissa N Poulsen; Joris Menten; Elizabeth Marum; Anne Buvé Journal: AIDS Educ Prev Date: 2010-08
Authors: Claire V Crooks; Andrea Lapp; Monique Auger; Kim van der Woerd; Angela Snowshoe; Billie Jo Rogers; Samantha Tsuruda; Cassidy Caron Journal: Am J Community Psychol Date: 2018-03-25
Authors: Kamilla L Venner; Brenna L Greenfield; Kylee J Hagler; Jeremiah Simmons; Donna Lupee; Everett Homer; Yvette Yamutewa; Jane Ellen Smith Journal: Addict Behav Rep Date: 2016-06-01
Authors: Graham F Moore; Rhiannon E Evans; Jemma Hawkins; Hannah Littlecott; G J Melendez-Torres; Chris Bonell; Simon Murphy Journal: Evaluation (Lond) Date: 2018-10-31
Authors: Lauren Copeland; Hannah Littlecott; Danielle Couturiaux; Pat Hoddinott; Jeremy Segrott; Simon Murphy; Graham Moore; Rhiannon Evans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Graham Moore; Mhairi Campbell; Lauren Copeland; Peter Craig; Ani Movsisyan; Pat Hoddinott; Hannah Littlecott; Alicia O'Cathain; Lisa Pfadenhauer; Eva Rehfuess; Jeremy Segrott; Penelope Hawe; Frank Kee; Danielle Couturiaux; Britt Hallingberg; Rhiannon Evans Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-08-03