Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNoyes, J
dc.contributor.authorHendry, M
dc.contributor.authorBooth, A
dc.contributor.authorChandler, J
dc.contributor.authorLewin, S
dc.contributor.authorGlenton, C
dc.contributor.authorGarside, R
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-02T09:35:04Z
dc.date.issued2016-01-06
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: 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 STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of published/unpublished examples of theories of social phenomena for use in reviews of complex interventions identified through scoping searches, engagement with key authors and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 behaviour 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 endeavour.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 75, July 2016, pp. 78–92en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.009
dc.identifier.otherS0895-4356(16)00005-6
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/25557
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26772607en_GB
dc.rightsCrown Copyright 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).en_GB
dc.subjectCochraneen_GB
dc.subjectTheoryen_GB
dc.subjectcomplex interventionen_GB
dc.subjectmethodologyen_GB
dc.subjectsystematic reviewen_GB
dc.titleCurrent use and Cochrane guidance on selection of social theories for systematic reviews of complex interventions.en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2017-02-02T09:35:04Z
dc.identifier.issn0895-4356
dc.descriptionPublished onlineen_GB
dc.descriptionJOURNAL ARTICLEen_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1878-5921
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Clinical Epidemiologyen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record