Unpacking the Cinderella black box of complex intervention development through the Partners at Care Transitions (Pact) programme of research

Bibliographic Data

ID19507432
AuthorsJenni Murray (0000-0003-0563-0020, Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group Bradford Institute for Health Research Bradford West Yorkshire UK, corresponding author), Ruth Baxter (0000-0002-7631-2786, Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group Bradford Institute for Health Research Bradford West Yorkshire UK), Rebecca Lawton (0000-0002-5832-402X, School of Psychology University of Leeds Leeds UK), Natasha Hardicre (0000-0002-3639-5556, Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group Bradford Institute for Health Research Bradford West Yorkshire UK), Rosemary Shannon (0000-0003-0346-7282, University of Leeds), Rosie Shannon (Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group Bradford Institute for Health Research Bradford West Yorkshire UK), Joseph Langley (Lab4Living Sheffield Hallam University Sheffield UK), Rebecca Partridge (0000-0002-1735-2956, Lab4Living Sheffield Hallam University Sheffield UK), Sally G Moore (0000-0002-0249-8645, Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group Bradford Institute for Health Research Bradford West Yorkshire UK), Sally Moore, Jane O’hara (0000-0001-5551-9975, University of Leeds), Jane K O'Hara (School of Healthcare University of Leeds Leeds UK)
Year2023
Volume26
Issue4
Pages1478-1490
Publication date2023-08-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth Expectations (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/hex.13682
PMID37186409
OpenAlexW4367054542
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited46

INTRODUCTION: Complex intervention development has been described as the 'Cinderella' black box in health services research. Greater transparency in the intervention development process is urgently needed to help reduce research waste. METHODS: We applied a new consensus-based framework for complex intervention development to our programme of research, in which we developed an intervention to improve the safety and experience of care transitions for older people. Through this process, we aimed to reflect on the framework's utility for intervention development and identify any important gaps within it to support its continued development. FINDINGS: The framework was a useful tool for transparent reporting of the process of complex intervention development. We identified potential 'action' gaps in the framework including 'consolidation of evidence' and 'development of principles' that could bracket and steer decision-making in the process. CONCLUSIONS: We consider that the level of transparency demonstrated in this report, aided through use of the framework, is essential in the quest for reducing research waste. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We have involved our dedicated patient and public involvement group in all work packages of this programme of research. Specifically, they attended and contributed to co-design workshops and contributed to finalizing the intervention for the pilot evaluation. Staff also participated by attending co-design workshops, helping us to prioritize content ideas for the intervention and supporting the development of intervention components outside of the workshops

Medical education · Process management · Unpacking · Computer Science · Engineering · Health Policy Implementation Science · Health Sciences Research and Education · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Nursing · Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access