↓ Skip to main content

Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
376 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
476 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting
Published in
Trials, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aileen Grant, Shaun Treweek, Tobias Dreischulte, Robbie Foy, Bruce Guthrie

Abstract

Process evaluations are recommended to open the 'black box' of complex interventions evaluated in trials, but there is limited guidance to help researchers design process evaluations. Much current literature on process evaluations of complex interventions focuses on qualitative methods, with less attention paid to quantitative methods. This discrepancy led us to develop our own framework for designing process evaluations of cluster-randomised controlled trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 476 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 9 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 459 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 103 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 92 19%
Student > Master 82 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 18 4%
Other 71 15%
Unknown 86 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 76 16%
Social Sciences 57 12%
Psychology 41 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 2%
Other 52 11%
Unknown 111 23%