TRIPLE C reporting principles for case study evaluations of the role of context in complex interventions

Sara Shaw; Sara Paparini; Jamie Murdoch; Judith Green; Trisha  Greenhalgh; Benjamin Hanckel; Hannah James; Mark Petticrew; Gary W Wood; Chrysanthi Papoutsi

doi:10.1186/s12874-023-01888-7

TRIPLE C reporting principles for case study evaluations of the role of context in complex interventions

Sara Shaw^*, Sara Paparini, Jamie Murdoch, Judith Green, Trisha Greenhalgh, Benjamin Hanckel, Hannah James, Mark Petticrew, Gary W Wood, Chrysanthi Papoutsi

^*Corresponding author for this work

Population Health Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Guidance and reporting principles such as CONSORT (for randomised trials) and PRISMA (for systematic reviews) have greatly improved the reporting, discoverability, transparency and consistency of published research. We sought to develop similar guidance for case study evaluations undertaken to explore the influence of context on the processes and outcomes of complex interventions. Methods: A range of experts were recruited to an online Delphi panel, sampling for maximum diversity in disciplines (e.g. public health, health services research, organisational studies), settings (e.g. country), and sectors (e.g. academic, policy, third sector). To inform panel deliberations, we prepared background materials based on: [a] a systematic meta-narrative review of empirical and methodological literatures on case study, context and complex interventions; [b] the collective experience of a network of health systems and public health researchers; and [c] the established RAMESES II standards (which cover one kind of case study). We developed a list of topics and issues based on these sources and encouraged panel members to provide free text comments. Their feedback informed development of a set of items in the form of questions for potential inclusion in the reporting principles. We circulated these by email, asking panel members to rank each potential item twice (for relevance and validity) on a 7-point Likert scale. This sequence was repeated twice. Results: We recruited 51 panel members from 50 organisations across 12 countries, who brought experience of a range of case study research methods and applications. 26 completed all three Delphi rounds, reaching over 80% consensus on 16 items covering title, abstract, definitions of terms, philosophical assumptions, research question(s), rationale, how context and complexity relates to the intervention, ethical approval, empirical methods, findings, use of theory, generalisability and transferability, researcher perspective and influence, conclusions and recommendations, and funding and conflicts of interest. Conclusion: The ‘Triple C’ (Case study, Context, Complex interventions) reporting principles recognise that case studies are undertaken in different ways for different purposes and based on different philosophical assumptions. They are designed to be enabling rather than prescriptive, and to make case study evaluation reporting on context and complex health interventions more comprehensive, accessible and useable.

Original language	English
Article number	115
Journal	BMC Medical Research Methodology
Volume	23
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01888-7
Publication status	Published - 13 May 2023

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1186/s12874-023-01888-7

https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-023-01888-7#citeas

Cite this

@article{c5992c1e972349d787b47500f2d99886,

title = "TRIPLE C reporting principles for case study evaluations of the role of context in complex interventions",

abstract = "Background: Guidance and reporting principles such as CONSORT (for randomised trials) and PRISMA (for systematic reviews) have greatly improved the reporting, discoverability, transparency and consistency of published research. We sought to develop similar guidance for case study evaluations undertaken to explore the influence of context on the processes and outcomes of complex interventions. Methods: A range of experts were recruited to an online Delphi panel, sampling for maximum diversity in disciplines (e.g. public health, health services research, organisational studies), settings (e.g. country), and sectors (e.g. academic, policy, third sector). To inform panel deliberations, we prepared background materials based on: [a] a systematic meta-narrative review of empirical and methodological literatures on case study, context and complex interventions; [b] the collective experience of a network of health systems and public health researchers; and [c] the established RAMESES II standards (which cover one kind of case study). We developed a list of topics and issues based on these sources and encouraged panel members to provide free text comments. Their feedback informed development of a set of items in the form of questions for potential inclusion in the reporting principles. We circulated these by email, asking panel members to rank each potential item twice (for relevance and validity) on a 7-point Likert scale. This sequence was repeated twice. Results: We recruited 51 panel members from 50 organisations across 12 countries, who brought experience of a range of case study research methods and applications. 26 completed all three Delphi rounds, reaching over 80% consensus on 16 items covering title, abstract, definitions of terms, philosophical assumptions, research question(s), rationale, how context and complexity relates to the intervention, ethical approval, empirical methods, findings, use of theory, generalisability and transferability, researcher perspective and influence, conclusions and recommendations, and funding and conflicts of interest. Conclusion: The {\textquoteleft}Triple C{\textquoteright} (Case study, Context, Complex interventions) reporting principles recognise that case studies are undertaken in different ways for different purposes and based on different philosophical assumptions. They are designed to be enabling rather than prescriptive, and to make case study evaluation reporting on context and complex health interventions more comprehensive, accessible and useable.",

author = "Sara Shaw and Sara Paparini and Jamie Murdoch and Judith Green and Trisha Greenhalgh and Benjamin Hanckel and Hannah James and Mark Petticrew and Wood, {Gary W} and Chrysanthi Papoutsi",

note = "Funding Information: The research was funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/S014632/1). Additional funding for SP, TG, CP and SS salaries over the course of the study was provided by the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20008), Wellcome Trust (WT104830MA; 221457/Z/20/Z) and the University of Oxford's Higher Education Innovation Fund; JG is supported with funding from the Wellcome Trust WT203109/Z/16/Z. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors. Funding bodies had no input to the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or preparation of this paper. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023, The Author(s).",

year = "2023",

month = may,

day = "13",

doi = "10.1186/s12874-023-01888-7",

language = "English",

volume = "23",

journal = "BMC Medical Research Methodology",

issn = "1471-2288",

publisher = "BioMed Central",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - TRIPLE C reporting principles for case study evaluations of the role of context in complex interventions

AU - Shaw, Sara

AU - Paparini, Sara

AU - Murdoch, Jamie

AU - Green, Judith

AU - Greenhalgh, Trisha

AU - Hanckel, Benjamin

AU - James, Hannah

AU - Petticrew, Mark

AU - Wood, Gary W

AU - Papoutsi, Chrysanthi

N1 - Funding Information: The research was funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/S014632/1). Additional funding for SP, TG, CP and SS salaries over the course of the study was provided by the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20008), Wellcome Trust (WT104830MA; 221457/Z/20/Z) and the University of Oxford's Higher Education Innovation Fund; JG is supported with funding from the Wellcome Trust WT203109/Z/16/Z. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors. Funding bodies had no input to the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or preparation of this paper. Publisher Copyright: © 2023, The Author(s).

PY - 2023/5/13

Y1 - 2023/5/13

N2 - Background: Guidance and reporting principles such as CONSORT (for randomised trials) and PRISMA (for systematic reviews) have greatly improved the reporting, discoverability, transparency and consistency of published research. We sought to develop similar guidance for case study evaluations undertaken to explore the influence of context on the processes and outcomes of complex interventions. Methods: A range of experts were recruited to an online Delphi panel, sampling for maximum diversity in disciplines (e.g. public health, health services research, organisational studies), settings (e.g. country), and sectors (e.g. academic, policy, third sector). To inform panel deliberations, we prepared background materials based on: [a] a systematic meta-narrative review of empirical and methodological literatures on case study, context and complex interventions; [b] the collective experience of a network of health systems and public health researchers; and [c] the established RAMESES II standards (which cover one kind of case study). We developed a list of topics and issues based on these sources and encouraged panel members to provide free text comments. Their feedback informed development of a set of items in the form of questions for potential inclusion in the reporting principles. We circulated these by email, asking panel members to rank each potential item twice (for relevance and validity) on a 7-point Likert scale. This sequence was repeated twice. Results: We recruited 51 panel members from 50 organisations across 12 countries, who brought experience of a range of case study research methods and applications. 26 completed all three Delphi rounds, reaching over 80% consensus on 16 items covering title, abstract, definitions of terms, philosophical assumptions, research question(s), rationale, how context and complexity relates to the intervention, ethical approval, empirical methods, findings, use of theory, generalisability and transferability, researcher perspective and influence, conclusions and recommendations, and funding and conflicts of interest. Conclusion: The ‘Triple C’ (Case study, Context, Complex interventions) reporting principles recognise that case studies are undertaken in different ways for different purposes and based on different philosophical assumptions. They are designed to be enabling rather than prescriptive, and to make case study evaluation reporting on context and complex health interventions more comprehensive, accessible and useable.

AB - Background: Guidance and reporting principles such as CONSORT (for randomised trials) and PRISMA (for systematic reviews) have greatly improved the reporting, discoverability, transparency and consistency of published research. We sought to develop similar guidance for case study evaluations undertaken to explore the influence of context on the processes and outcomes of complex interventions. Methods: A range of experts were recruited to an online Delphi panel, sampling for maximum diversity in disciplines (e.g. public health, health services research, organisational studies), settings (e.g. country), and sectors (e.g. academic, policy, third sector). To inform panel deliberations, we prepared background materials based on: [a] a systematic meta-narrative review of empirical and methodological literatures on case study, context and complex interventions; [b] the collective experience of a network of health systems and public health researchers; and [c] the established RAMESES II standards (which cover one kind of case study). We developed a list of topics and issues based on these sources and encouraged panel members to provide free text comments. Their feedback informed development of a set of items in the form of questions for potential inclusion in the reporting principles. We circulated these by email, asking panel members to rank each potential item twice (for relevance and validity) on a 7-point Likert scale. This sequence was repeated twice. Results: We recruited 51 panel members from 50 organisations across 12 countries, who brought experience of a range of case study research methods and applications. 26 completed all three Delphi rounds, reaching over 80% consensus on 16 items covering title, abstract, definitions of terms, philosophical assumptions, research question(s), rationale, how context and complexity relates to the intervention, ethical approval, empirical methods, findings, use of theory, generalisability and transferability, researcher perspective and influence, conclusions and recommendations, and funding and conflicts of interest. Conclusion: The ‘Triple C’ (Case study, Context, Complex interventions) reporting principles recognise that case studies are undertaken in different ways for different purposes and based on different philosophical assumptions. They are designed to be enabling rather than prescriptive, and to make case study evaluation reporting on context and complex health interventions more comprehensive, accessible and useable.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85159222652&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12874-023-01888-7

DO - 10.1186/s12874-023-01888-7

M3 - Article

SN - 1471-2288

VL - 23

JO - BMC Medical Research Methodology

JF - BMC Medical Research Methodology

IS - 1

M1 - 115

ER -

TRIPLE C reporting principles for case study evaluations of the role of context in complex interventions

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this