Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
medicine
Current use was established and Cochrane guidance on selection of social theories for systematic reviews of complex interventions was developed
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 75, Year 2016
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Objective To identify examples of how social theories are used in systematic reviews of complex interventions to inform production of Cochrane guidance. Study Design and Setting Secondary analysis of published/unpublished examples of theories of social phenomena for use in reviews of complex interventions identified through scoping searches, engagement with key authors and methodologists supplemented by snowballing and reference searching. Theories were classified (low-level, mid-range, grand). Results Over 100 theories were identified with evidence of proliferation over the last 5 years. New low-level theories (tools, taxonomies, etc) have been developed for classifying and reporting complex interventions. Numerous mid-range theories are used; one example demonstrated how control theory had changed the review's findings. Review-specific logic models are increasingly used, but these can be challenging to develop. New low-level and mid-range psychological theories of behavior change are evolving. No reviews using grand theory (e.g., feminist theory) were identified. We produced a searchable Wiki, Mendeley Inventory, and Cochrane guidance. Conclusions Use of low-level theory is common and evolving; incorporation of mid-range theory is still the exception rather than the norm. Methodological work is needed to evaluate the contribution of theory. Choice of theory reflects personal preference; application of theory is a skilled endeavor. © 2016
Authors & Co-Authors
Noyes, Jane P.
United Kingdom, Bangor
Bangor University
Hendry, Maggie
United Kingdom, Bangor
Bangor University
Booth, Andrew C.
United Kingdom, Sheffield
The University of Sheffield
Chandler, Jackie
United Kingdom, London
Cochrane Editorial Unit
Lewin, Simon A.
Norway, Oslo
Folkehelseinstituttet
Glenton, Claire
Norway, Oslo
Folkehelseinstituttet
Garside, Ruth
United Kingdom, Exeter
University of Exeter
Statistics
Citations: 31
Authors: 7
Affiliations: 5
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.009
ISSN:
08954356