Existing frameworks and guidance for public health intervention development
| Guidance/framework | Description | Possible limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention mapping6 | Extremely rigorous and elaborate approach to intervention development through six steps | Individual, social-psychological orientation. Highly technical, prescriptive, can require years to implement, difficult to operationalise |
| Conceptual framework for planning intervention-related research7 | Specifies nine steps in developing and evaluating public health interventions | Insufficient detail in steps for operationalising |
| PRECEDE–PROCEED model8 | Socioecological approach. Planning phase is PRECEDE; evaluation is PROCEED. Extensively data driven and practical application | May require great technical skill, time and money. Little detail on intervention development |
| Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health.9 | Useful guide to development of interventions within the context of healthcare services | Focus on healthcare not public health. Little detail on intervention development |
| MRC guidance for the development and evaluation of Complex interventions4 | Identifies three broad stages of intervention development: developing theory, modelling process and outcomes and assessing feasibility | Does not break down three stages any further. Primarily devoted to evaluation |
| Design for behaviour change framework10 | For community development workers in low income countries. Focuses on determinants, facilitators and barriers to intended behaviour to plan behaviour change projects strategically | Sequence of steps advocated in part illogical and some of the terminology confusing |