Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries

Background Process evaluation is increasingly recognized as an important component of effective implementation research and yet, there has been surprisingly little work to understand what constitutes best practice. Researchers use different methodologies describing causal pathways and understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in diverse contexts and settings. We report on challenges and lessons learned from undertaking process evaluation of seven hypertension intervention trials funded through the Global Alliance of Chronic Diseases (GACD). Methods Preliminary data collected from the GACD hypertension teams in 2015 were used to inform a template for data collection. Case study themes included: (1) description of the intervention, (2) objectives of the process evaluation, (3) methods including theoretical basis, (4) main findings of the study and the process evaluation, (5) implications for the project, policy and research practice and (6) lessons for future process evaluations. The information was summarized and reported descriptively and narratively and key lessons were identified. Results The case studies were from low- and middle-income countries and Indigenous communities in Canada. They were implementation research projects with intervention arm. Six theoretical approaches were used but most comprised of mixed-methods approaches. Each of the process evaluations generated findings on whether interventions were implemented with fidelity, the extent of capacity building, contextual factors and the extent to which relationships between researchers and community impacted on intervention implementation. The most important learning was that although process evaluation is time consuming, it enhances understanding of factors affecting implementation of complex interventions. The research highlighted the need to initiate process evaluations early on in the project, to help guide design of the intervention; and the importance of effective communication between researchers responsible for trial implementation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation. Conclusion This research demonstrates the important role of process evaluation in understanding implementation process of complex interventions. This can help to highlight a broad range of system requirements such as new policies and capacity building to support implementation. Process evaluation is crucial in understanding contextual factors that may impact intervention implementation which is important in considering whether or not the intervention can be translated to other contexts

The genetic epidemiology of joint shape and the development of osteoarthritis

Congruent, low-friction relative movement between the articulating elements of a synovial joint is an essential pre-requisite for sustained, efficient, function. Where disorders of joint formation or maintenance exist, mechanical overloading and osteoarthritis (OA) follow. The heritable component of OA accounts for ~ 50% of susceptible risk. Although almost 100 genetic risk loci for OA have now been identified, and the epidemiological relationship between joint development, joint shape and osteoarthritis is well established, we still have only a limited understanding of the contribution that genetic variation makes to joint shape and how this modulates OA risk. In this article, a brief overview of synovial joint development and its genetic regulation is followed by a review of current knowledge on the genetic epidemiology of established joint shape disorders and common shape variation. A summary of current genetic epidemiology of OA is also given, together with current evidence on the genetic overlap between shape variation and OA. Finally, the established genetic risk loci for both joint shape and osteoarthritis are discussed

Mapping the use of research to support strategies tackling maternal and child health inequities: evidence from six countries in Africa and Latin America

Abstract Background Striving to foster collaboration among countries suffering from maternal and child health (MCH) inequities, the MASCOT project mapped and analyzed the use of research in strategies tackling them in 11 low- and middle-income countries. This article aims to present the way in which research influenced MCH policies and programs in six of these countries – three in Africa and three in Latin America. Methods Qualitative research using a thematic synthesis narrative process was used to identify and describe who is producing what kind of research, how research is funded, how inequities are approached by research and policies, the countries’ research capacities, and the type of evidence base that MCH policies and programs use. Four tools were designed for these purposes: an online survey for researchers, a semi-structured interview with decision makers, and two content analysis guides: one for policy and programs documents and one for scientific articles. Results Three modalities of research utilization were observed in the strategies tackling MCH inequities in the six included countries – instrumental, conceptual and symbolic. Instrumental utilization directly relates the formulation and contents of the strategies with research results, and is the least used within the analyzed policies and programs. Even though research is considered as an important input to support decision making and most of the analyzed countries count five or six relevant MCH research initiatives, in most cases, the actual impact of research is not clearly identifiable. Conclusions While MCH research is increasing in low- and middle-income countries, the impact of its outcomes on policy formulation is low. We did not identify a direct relationship between the nature of the financial support organizations and the kind of evidence utilization within the policy process. There is still a visible gap between researchers and policymakers regarding their different intentions to link evidence and decision making processes

Process evaluation in the field: Global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries

Background: Process evaluation is increasingly recognized as an important component of effective implementation research and yet, there has been surprisingly little work to understand what constitutes best practice. Researchers use different methodologies describing causal pathways and understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in diverse contexts and settings. We report on challenges and lessons learned from undertaking process evaluation of seven hypertension intervention trials funded through the Global Alliance of Chronic Diseases (GACD). Methods: Preliminary data collected from the GACD hypertension teams in 2015 were used to inform a template for data collection. Case study themes included: (1) description of the intervention, (2) objectives of the process evaluation, (3) methods including theoretical basis, (4) main findings of the study and the process evaluation, (5) implications for the project, policy and research practice and (6) lessons for future process evaluations. The information was summarized and reported descriptively and narratively and key lessons were identified. Results: The case studies were from low- and middle-income countries and Indigenous communities in Canada. They were implementation research projects with intervention arm. Six theoretical approaches were used but most comprised of mixed-methods approaches. Each of the process evaluations generated findings on whether interventions were implemented with fidelity, the extent of capacity building, contextual factors and the extent to which relationships between researchers and community impacted on intervention implementation. The most important learning was that although process evaluation is time consuming, it enhances understanding of factors affecting implementation of complex interventions. The research highlighted the need to initiate process evaluations early on in the project, to help guide design of the intervention; and the importance of effective communication between researchers responsible for trial implementation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation. Conclusion: This research demonstrates the important role of process evaluation in understanding implementation process of complex interventions. This can help to highlight a broad range of system requirements such as new policies and capacity building to support implementation. Process evaluation is crucial in understanding contextual factors that may impact intervention implementation which is important in considering whether or not the intervention can be translated to other contexts

Developing consensus measures for global programs: Lessons from the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases Hypertension research program

Background: The imperative to improve global health has prompted transnational research partnerships to investigate common health issues on a larger scale. The Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) is an alliance of national research funding agencies. To enhance research funded by GACD members, this study aimed to standardise data collection methods across the 15 GACD hypertension research teams and evaluate the uptake of these standardised measurements. Furthermore we describe concerns and difficulties associated with the data harmonisation process highlighted and debated during annual meetings of the GACD funded investigators. With these concerns and issues in mind, a working group comprising representatives from the 15 studies iteratively identified and proposed a set of common measures for inclusion in each of the teams' data collection plans. One year later all teams were asked which consensus measures had been implemented. Results: Important issues were identified during the data harmonisation process relating to data ownership, sharing methodologies and ethical concerns. Measures were assessed across eight domains; demographic; dietary; clinical and anthropometric; medical history; hypertension knowledge; physical activity; behavioural (smoking and alcohol); and biochemical domains. Identifying validated measures relevant across a variety of settings presented some difficulties. The resulting GACD hypertension data dictionary comprises 67 consensus measures. Of the 14 responding teams, only two teams were including more than 50 consensus variables, five teams were including between 25 and 50 consensus variables and four teams were including between 6 and 24 consensus variables, one team did not provide details of the variables collected and two teams did not include any of the consensus variables as the project had already commenced or the measures were not relevant to their study. Conclusions: Deriving consensus measures across diverse research projects and contexts was challenging. The major barrier to their implementation was related to the time taken to develop and present these measures. Inclusion of consensus measures into future funding announcements would facilitate researchers integrating these measures within application protocols. We suggest that adoption of consensus measures developed here, across the field of hypertension, would help advance the science in this area, allowing for more comparable data sets and generalizable inferences