Subtheme | Number of process evaluations reporting this value (n = 17) | Examples of reported values in subtheme |
---|---|---|
Adding to wider knowledge | 16 | • Informing future trial design [23, 25, 27, 28, 32, 33, 38] • Improving future design of similar interventions [22, 24, 33] |
Informing post-trial transfer of intervention to practice | 15 | • Providing evidence of feasibility [28, 33] • Highlighting potential disadvantages of intervention to facilitate consent discussions with patients [23] |
Identifying intervention improvements | 10 | • Adding stronger monitoring protocols to promote adherence [33] • Recommendation to research effectiveness over time [29] |
Providing reasons for trial results | 8 | |
Addressing an identified concern about the intervention | 7 | • Concern about the effect of cognitive impairment on effectiveness [22] |
Adding information not provided by the trial | 6 | • Participant and deliverer experiences and perceptions [23, 35] • Nuance and context [23] |
Increasing accuracy of trial results | 6 | • Investigating threats to internal validity [26] • Accurately defining trial population [25] |
Understanding how the intervention works | 4 | • Understanding what was delivered in a flexible intervention [38] • Mechanisms of impact [28] |
Building on trial data | 2 | • Exploring findings of subgroup analysis [29] |
Understanding applicability of trial results | 2 | • Evaluating whether intended pragmatic trial population achieved [25] |
Improving usual care at trial sites | 1 | • Highlighting gaps in current care provision [27] |
Meeting pragmatic RCT reporting requirements | 1 | • Adhere to reporting standards for pragmatic and non-pharmacological trials [27] |
Meeting recommendation to conduct process evaluation | 1 | • Following MRC recommendations [28] |