Use of interventions with a previous evidence base in new contexts might be more efficient than developing new interventions Many population health problems and interventions are highly sensitive to context, so implementing an intervention in a new context without adaptation might be less likely to lead to positive outcomes A new consensus informed guidance for adapting interventions to achieve a good fit between the intervention and context (ADAPT) proposes systematic processes for adapting interventions to new contexts, and transparent reporting to facilitate synthesis on what does or does not workThe ADAPT guidance was developed using systematic review methods, qualitative interviews, extensive consultation, and formal consensus methods. It provides a framework and step-by-step guidance for working with stakeholders, selecting suitable interventions, undertaking adaptations, making decisions on evaluation and implementation, and reporting adapted interventions

Co-production affords an intervention’s target population the opportunity to participate in intervention theory decision-making during the development process. This addresses the over-reliance on developing interventions through academic theories which can be devoid of contextual understanding and result in challenges to implementing school-based health programmes. There is an emergent empirical literature on co-producing school-based health interventions, but an understanding of appropriate theoretical types and processes and stakeholders’ experiences is lacking. Through the conduct of a systematic review, this study seeks to understand the types and underlying theories and processes for co-production in school-based health interventions with students aged 11–16. A thematic synthesis explored stakeholders’ experiences of the different types of co-production. A systematic search of five electronic bibliographic databases, citation tracking of included studies, and consultation with an expert international panel were employed. Of 27,433 unique papers, 30 papers representing 22 studies were retained to describe types, and 23 papers of 18 studies used to synthesise stakeholders’ experiences. Three types were identified: external, individual-level, and system-level capacity-building. Whilst this review showed variability in co-production types, stakeholders involved and processes, shared functions were identified. Students’, school staff, facilitators’ and researchers’ experiences in terms of acceptability, feasibility and undertaking decision-making are discussed. Recommendations for conceptualising and reporting co-production and process evaluations of co-produced school-based health interventions are highlighted.

Background The adaptation of interventions for new contexts is a rapidly developing research area. To date there is no consensus-based guidance to support decision-making and recommend adaptation processes. The ADAPT study is developing such guidance. This aim of the qualitative component of the study was to explore stakeholders’ understandings of adaptation, as to date there has limited consideration of how different concepts and meanings shape decision-making and practice. Methods A case study research design was used. Participants/cases were purposefully sampled based on study outcome, study design, expertise, context and country. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers (n = 23); representatives from research funding panels (n = 6); journal editors (n = 5) and practitioners (n = 3). Data were analysed using the Framework approach. Overarching themes were discussed with the ADAPT study team, with further iterative refinement of subthemes. Results The results generated four central themes. Four themes related to stakeholders’ understanding: 1) definitions of adaptation and related concepts; 2) rationales for undertaking adaptation; 3) the appropriate timing for adaptation; and 4) ensuring fidelity when implementing adapted interventions. Conclusion The findings highlight the lack of clarity around key concepts and uncertainty about central decision-making processes, notably why interventions should be adapted, when and to what extent. This has informed the ADAPT study’s guidance, shaping the scope and nature of recommendations to be included and surfacing key uncertainties that require future consideration.

(1) Background: This study examines the associations between risk behaviours and adolescent emotional and physical dating and relationship violence (DRV) victimisation and perpetration, and how these vary by gender. The risk behaviours explored include bullying, cyberbullying, sexting, alcohol, and cannabis use; (2) Methods: Cross-sectional self-report data from the School Health Research Network (SHRN) 2019 Student Health Wellbeing (SHW) survey of 48,397 students aged 11–16 from 149 schools across Wales were analysed using single and multiple-behaviour logistic regression models to explore the associations between each risk behaviour and emotional and physical DRV victimisation and perpetration; (3) Results: Bivariate analyses revealed a statistically significant association between DRV and all risk behaviours. In multivariate analyses, students who reported bullying, cyberbullying, sexting, and substance use, compared to those that had not, had significantly higher odds of experiencing and perpetrating emotional and physical DRV; and (4) Conclusions: Future studies on DRV should consider a mixed-methods approach to explore the context in which DRV and risk behaviours interrelate. Results from this study indicate the possibility that prevention and intervention programmes in school settings that seek to develop healthy school environments and peer-to-peer relationships, could inadvertently reduce the occurrence of future DRV and associated risk behaviours.

ObjectivesResearch on the adaptation of population health interventions for implementation in new contexts is rapidly expanding. This has been accompanied by a recent increase in the number of frameworks and guidance to support adaptation processes. Nevertheless, there remains limited exploration of the real-world experiences of undertaking intervention adaptation, notably the challenges encountered by different groups of stakeholders, and how these are managed. Understanding experiences is imperative in ensuring that guidance to support adaptation has practical utility. This qualitative study examines researcher and stakeholder experiences of funding, conducting and reporting adaptation research.SettingAdaptation studies.ParticipantsParticipants/cases were purposefully sampled to represent a range of adapted interventions, types of evaluations, expertise and countries. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers (n=23), representatives from research funding panels (n=6), journal editors (n=5) and practitioners (n=3).MeasuresA case study research design was used. Data were analysed using the framework approach. Overarching themes were discussed within the study team, with further iterative refinement of subthemes.ResultsThe results generated four central themes. The first three relate to the experience of intervention adaptation (1) involving stakeholders throughout the adaptation process and how to integrate the evidence base with experience; (2) selecting the intervention and negotiating the mismatch between the original and the new context; and (3) the complexity and uncertainty when deciding the re-evaluation process. The final theme (4) reflects on participants’ experiences of using adaptation frameworks in practice, considering recommendations for future guidance development and refinement.ConclusionThis study highlights the range of complexities and challenges experienced in funding, conducting and reporting research on intervention adaptation. Moving forward, guidance can be helpful in systematising processes, provided that it remains responsive to local contexts and encourage innovative practice.