Skip to main content

Table 2 Distribution of evaluation designs according to the evaluation field (n = 105)

From: Which design to evaluate complex interventions? Toward a methodological framework through a systematic review

 

Health promotion/Prevention (n = 29)

Clinical care/ Health services research (n = 76)

Total

n (% a)

Including process and/or mechanism evaluation

n (%b)

Total

n (%a)

Including process and/or mechanism evaluation

n (%b)

Individual randomized trials

6 (20.7)

5 (83.3)

17 (22.4)

9 (52.9)

Randomized trial adaptations

9 (31.0)

9 (100)

37 (48.7)

34 (91.9)

Cluster randomized trials

5 (17.2)

5 (100)

19 (25)

18 (94.7)

Pragmatic trials

1 (3.4)

1 (100)

8 (10.5)

7 (87.5)

Cluster and pragmatic

3 (10.3)

3 (100)

10 (13.2)

9 (90)

Alternative methods to RCT

14 (48.3)

13 (92.9)

22 (28.9)

14 (63.6)

Quasi-experimental

7 (24.1)

6 (85.7)

7 (9.2)

6 (85.7)

Cohort study

0 (0)

0

6 (7.9)

1 (16.7)

Realist evaluation

2 (6.9)

2 (100)

5 (6.6)

5 (100)

Case studies and other approaches

5 (17.2)

5 (100)

4 (5.3)

2 (50)

  1. an/ number of design (N = 108)
  2. bn/number of such type of desing (for example: 87.5% of Individual RCT are combined with process and/or mechanism evaluation)