BackgroundHealth education interventions are generally complex. Their outcomes result from both the intervention itself and the context for which they are developed. Thus, when an intervention carried out in one context is reproduced in another, its transferability can be questionable. We performed a literature review to analyze the concept of transferability in the health education field.MethodsArticles included were published between 2000 and 2010 that addressed the notion of transferability of interventions in health education. Articles were analyzed using a standardized grid based on four items: 1) terminology used; 2) factors that influenced transferability; 3) capacity of the research and evaluation designs to assess transferability; and 4) tools and criteria available to assess transferability.Results43 articles met the inclusion criteria. Only 13 of them used the exact term “transferability” and one article gave an explicit definition: the extent to which the measured effectiveness of an applicable intervention could be achieved in another setting. Moreover, this concept was neither clearly used nor distinguished from others, such as applicability. We highlight the levels of influence of transferability and their associated factors, as well as the limitations of research methods in their ability to produce transferable conclusions.ConclusionsWe have tried to clarify the concept by defining it along three lines that may constitute areas for future research: factors influencing transferability, research methods to produce transferable data, and development of criteria to assess transferability. We conclude this review with three propositions: 1) a conceptual clarification of transferability, especially with reference to other terms used; 2) avenues for developing knowledge on this concept and analyzing the transferability of interventions; and 3) in relation to research, avenues for developing better evaluation methods for assessing the transferability of interventions.

Background Evaluation of complex interventions (CI) is challenging for health researchers and requires innovative approaches. The objective of this work is to present the main methods used to evaluate CI. Methods A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted to identify methods used for the evaluation of CI. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed databases for articles including an evaluation or a pilot study of a complex intervention, published in a ten-year period. Key-words of this research were (“complex intervention*” AND “evaluation”). Results Among 445 identified articles, 100 research results or protocols were included. Among them, 5 presented 2 different types of design in the same publication, thus our work included 105 designs. Individual randomized controlled trials (IRCT) represented 21.9% ( n = 23) of evaluation designs, randomized clinical trials adaptations 44.8% ( n = 47), quasi -experimental designs and cohort study 19.0% ( n = 20), realist evaluation 6.7% ( n = 7) and other cases studies and other approaches 8.6% ( n = 9). A process/mechanisms analysis was included in 80% ( n = 84) of these designs. Conclusion A range of methods can be used successively or combined at various steps of the evaluation approach. A framework is proposed to situate each of the designs with respect to evaluation questions. The growing interest of researchers in alternative methods and the development of their use must be accompanied by conceptual and methodological research in order to more clearly define their principles of use.

Summary Background Acral lesions, mainly chilblains, are the most frequently reported cutaneous lesions associated with COVID‐19. In more than 80% of patients tested, nasopharyngeal swabs were negative on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) for SARS‐CoV‐2 when performed, and serology was generally not performed. Methods A national survey was launched on 30 March 2020 by the French Society of Dermatology asking physicians to report cases of skin manifestations in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 by using a standardized questionnaire. We report the results for acral manifestations. Results We collected 311 cases of acral manifestations [58.5% women, median age 25.7 years (range 18–39)]. The most frequent clinical presentation (65%) was typical chilblains. In total, 93 cases (30%) showed clinical suspicion of COVID‐19, 67 (22%) had only less specific infectious symptoms and 151 (49%) had no clinical signs preceding or during the course of acral lesions. Histology of skin biopsies was consistent with chilblains. Overall, 12 patients showed significant immunological abnormalities. Of the 150 (48%) patients who were tested, 10 patients were positive. Seven of 121 (6%) RT‐PCR‐tested patients were positive for SARS‐CoV‐2, and five of 75 (7%) serology‐tested patients had IgG anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2. Tested/untested patients or those with/without confirmed COVID‐19 did not differ in age, sex, history or acral lesion clinical characteristics. Conclusions The results of this survey do not rule out that SARS‐CoV‐2 could be directly responsible for some cases of chilblains, but we found no evidence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in the large majority of patients with acral lesions during the COVID‐19 lockdown period in France. What is already known about this topic? About 1000 cases of acral lesions, mainly chilblains, were reported during the COVID‐19 outbreak. Chilblains were reported to occur in young people within 2 weeks of infectious signs, which were mild when present. Most cases did not have COVID‐19 confirmed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR), and few serology results were available. What does this study add? Among 311 patients with acral lesions, mainly chilblains, during the COVID‐19 lockdown period in France, the majority of patients tested had no evidence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Overall, 70 of 75 patients were seronegative for SARS‐Cov‐2 serology and 114 of 121 patients were negative for SARS‐CoV‐2 RT‐PCR.