rss
J Epidemiol Community Health 2009;63:4-11 doi:10.1136/jech.2007.071233
  • Research report

Reviewing evidence on complex social interventions: appraising implementation in systematic reviews of the health effects of organisational-level workplace interventions

This article has been Unlocked
  1. M Egan1,
  2. C Bambra2,
  3. M Petticrew3,
  4. M Whitehead4
  1. 1
    Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, UK
  2. 2
    Department of Geography, Wolfson Research Institute, Durham University, UK
  3. 3
    Public and Environmental Health Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
  4. 4
    Division of Public Health, University of Liverpool, UK
  1. Dr M Egan, Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 4 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK; M.Egan{at}sphsu.mrc.ac.uk and Matt.Egan{at}health.scot.nhs.uk
  • Accepted 8 July 2008
  • Published Online First 21 August 2008

Abstract

Background: The reporting of intervention implementation in studies included in systematic reviews of organisational-level workplace interventions was appraised. Implementation is taken to include such factors as intervention setting, resources, planning, collaborations, delivery and macro-level socioeconomic contexts. Understanding how implementation affects intervention outcomes may help prevent erroneous conclusions and misleading assumptions about generalisability, but implementation must be adequately reported if it is to be taken into account.

Methods: Data on implementation were obtained from four systematic reviews of complex interventions in workplace settings. Implementation was appraised using a specially developed checklist and by means of an unstructured reading of the text.

Results: 103 studies were identified and appraised, evaluating four types of organisational-level workplace intervention (employee participation, changing job tasks, shift changes and compressed working weeks). Many studies referred to implementation, but reporting was generally poor and anecdotal in form. This poor quality of reporting did not vary greatly by type or date of publication. A minority of studies described how implementation may have influenced outcomes. These descriptions were more usefully explored through an unstructured reading of the text, rather than by means of the checklist.

Conclusions: Evaluations of complex interventions should include more detailed reporting of implementation and consider how to measure quality of implementation. The checklist helped us explore the poor reporting of implementation in a more systematic fashion. In terms of interpreting study findings and their transferability, however, the more qualitative appraisals appeared to offer greater potential for exploring how implementation may influence the findings of specific evaluations. Implementation appraisal techniques for systematic reviews of complex interventions require further development and testing.

Footnotes

  • Funding: Department of Health Policy Research Programme (Public Health Research Consortium), Economic and Social Research Council and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Executive Health Department.

  • Competing interests: None.

This article has been Unlocked

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

Latest infectious diseases and epidemilogy jobs

Ophthalmology Jobs