ObjectiveTo provide researchers with guidance on actions to take during intervention development.Summary of key pointsBased on a consensus exercise informed by reviews and qualitative interviews, we present key principles and actions for consideration when developing interventions to improve health. These include seeing intervention development as a dynamic iterative process, involving stakeholders, reviewing published research evidence, drawing on existing theories, articulating programme theory, undertaking primary data collection, understanding context, paying attention to future implementation in the real world and designing and refining an intervention using iterative cycles of development with stakeholder input throughout.ConclusionResearchers should consider each action by addressing its relevance to a specific intervention in a specific context, both at the start and throughout the development process.

BackgroundInterventions need to be developed prior to the feasibility and piloting phase of a study. There are a variety of published approaches to developing interventions, programmes or innovations to improve health. Identifying different types of approach, and synthesising the range of actions taken within this endeavour, can inform future intervention development.MethodsThis study is a systematic methods overview of approaches to intervention development. Approaches were considered for inclusion if they described how to develop or adapt an intervention in a book, website or journal article published after 2007, or were cited in a primary research study reporting the development of a specific intervention published in 2015 or 2016. Approaches were read, a taxonomy of approaches was developed and the range of actions taken across different approaches were synthesised.ResultsEight categories of approach to intervention development were identified. (1) Partnership, where people who will use the intervention participate equally with the research team in decision-making about the intervention throughout the development process. (2) Target population-centred, where the intervention is based on the views and actions of the people who will use it. (3) Evidence and theory-based, where the intervention is based on published research evidence and existing theories. (4) Implementation-based, where the intervention is developed with attention to ensuring it will be used in the real world. (5) Efficiency-based, where components of an intervention are tested using experimental designs to select components which will optimise efficiency. (6) Stepped or phased, where interventions are developed with an emphasis on following a systematic set of processes. (7) Intervention-specific, where an approach is constructed for a specific type of intervention. (8) Combination, where existing approaches to intervention development are formally combined. The actions from approaches in all eight categories were synthesised to identify 18 actions to consider when developing interventions.ConclusionsThis overview of approaches to intervention development can help researchers to understand the variety of existing approaches, and to understand the range of possible actions involved in intervention development, prior to assessing feasibility or piloting the intervention. Findings from this overview will contribute to future guidance on intervention development.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017080553.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40814-019-0425-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThere is increasing interest in using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) within organisations delivering health related services. However, organisations have had mixed success in implementing PROMs and there is little understanding about why this may be. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing PROMs in organisations.MethodA systematic review of reviews was undertaken. Searches were conducted of five electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, during the week of the 20th February 2017. Additional search methods included website searching and reference checking. To be included, a publication had to be a review of the literature, describe its methods and include information related to implementing PROMs. The reviews were extracted using a standardised form and assessed for their risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. The findings were synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (PROSPERO) (CRD42017057491).ResultsInitially 2047 records were identified. After assessing eligibility, six reviews were included. These reviews varied in their review type and focus. Different issues arose at distinct stages of the implementation process. Organisations needed to invest time and resources in two key stages early in the implementation process: ‘designing’ the processes for using PROMs within an organisation; and ‘preparing’ an organisation and its staff. The ‘designing’ stage involved organisations planning not just which PROMs to use and how to administer them, but also how the data would be used for clinical purposes. The ‘preparing’ stage involved getting an organisation and its staff ready to use PROMs, particularly persuading clinicians of the validity and value of PROMs, delivering training, and developing electronic systems. Having an implementation lead overseeing the process and developing the process based on feedback were also identified as facilitating implementation.ConclusionOrganisations implementing PROMs need to invest time and resources in ‘designing’ the PROMs strategy and ‘preparing’ the organisation to use PROMs. Focusing on these earlier stages may prevent problems arising when PROMs are used in practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s41687-018-0072-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveTo improve the quality and consistency of intervention development reporting in health research.DesignThis was a consensus exercise consisting of two simultaneous and identical three-round e-Delphi studies (one with experts in intervention development and one with wider stakeholders including funders, journal editors and public involvement members), followed by a consensus workshop. Delphi items were systematically derived from two preceding systematic reviews and a qualitative interview study.ParticipantsIntervention developers (n=26) and wider stakeholders (n=18) from the UK, North America and Europe participated in separate e-Delphi studies. Intervention developers (n=13) and wider stakeholders (n=13) participated in a 1-day consensus workshop.Resultse-Delphi participants achieved consensus on 15 reporting items. Following feedback from the consensus meeting, the final inclusion and wording of 14 items with description and explanations for each item were agreed. Items focus on context, purpose, target population, approaches, evidence, theory, guiding principles, stakeholder contribution, changes in content or format during the development process, required changes for subgroups, continuing uncertainties, and open access publication. They form the GUIDED (GUIDance for the rEporting of intervention Development) checklist, which contains a description and explanation of each item, alongside examples of good reporting.ConclusionsConsensus-based reporting guidance for intervention development in health research is now available for publishers and researchers to use. GUIDED has the potential to lead to greater transparency, and enhance quality and improve learning about intervention development research and practice.

Although patient and public involvement in research is a requirement for research funding in many countries, the knowledge base for how to effectively involve people—and evidence of the effectiveness of involvement—is weak. This article describes how methods used in participatory health research were used to involve patients, clients, providers and community health workers across all stages of a realist review. Sustained involvement enabled better identification of the components of the complex intervention of community-based peer support. It also challenged assumptions of how peer support is constructed, leading the review team to question whether the process of designing and implementing interventions has more influence on effectiveness than previously recognised in empirical studies. We conclude with a discussion on when sustained involvement should be used, and the challenges of incorporating it into the traditional researcher-led approach to systematic reviews.