Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Identifying the ‘active ingredients’ of complex interventions is challenging but essential for practical implementation of review findings; some intervention approaches may be appropriate and effective in some contexts, but fail in others. For example, Weight Management Programmes (WMPs) are complex multicomponent interventions, and whilst we know that, overall, WMPs incorporating both diet and exercise components are more effective than those addressing diet or exercise alone, attempts to explain the substantial residual variance in outcomes have been unsuccessful. This equivocal picture therefore cannot help decision-makers determine the detail of which interventions to favour in which situations.
Objectives: In a review for policy makers and WMP commissioners in the UK we sought to reveal sufficiently fine-grained evidence about the characteristics of successful WMPs to enable this evidence to be used in decision-making.
Methods: Firstly, in addition to identifying intervention characteristics from trial reports, we conducted a synthesis of qualitative research to identify WMP characteristics based on users’ and providers’ experiences. We then coded descriptions of evaluated WMPs according to how they matched the views of WMP users and providers.
Secondly, to quantify the extent to which these WMP characteristics were associated with trial outcomes, we undertook a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). QCA can handle situations where there are relatively small numbers of studies and multiple pathways to success better than meta-regression.
Thirdly, to enhance the utility of the review, we consulted with a small number of local authorities and service commissioners on the nature and range of WMPs they currently provide and the appropriate presentation of findings.
Conclusion: The translation of research knowledge into policy and practice is essential if systematic reviews are to be more than an academic exercise. New approaches for translation work may be necessary for examining complex social interventions.
Objectives: In a review for policy makers and WMP commissioners in the UK we sought to reveal sufficiently fine-grained evidence about the characteristics of successful WMPs to enable this evidence to be used in decision-making.
Methods: Firstly, in addition to identifying intervention characteristics from trial reports, we conducted a synthesis of qualitative research to identify WMP characteristics based on users’ and providers’ experiences. We then coded descriptions of evaluated WMPs according to how they matched the views of WMP users and providers.
Secondly, to quantify the extent to which these WMP characteristics were associated with trial outcomes, we undertook a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). QCA can handle situations where there are relatively small numbers of studies and multiple pathways to success better than meta-regression.
Thirdly, to enhance the utility of the review, we consulted with a small number of local authorities and service commissioners on the nature and range of WMPs they currently provide and the appropriate presentation of findings.
Conclusion: The translation of research knowledge into policy and practice is essential if systematic reviews are to be more than an academic exercise. New approaches for translation work may be necessary for examining complex social interventions.