Variation in the operationalisation of dose in implementation of health promotion interventions: insights and recommendations from a scoping review

Abstract

Background While ‘dose’ is broadly understood as the ‘amount’ of an intervention, there is considerable variation in how this concept is defined. How we conceptualise, and subsequently measure, the dose of interventions has important implications for understanding how interventions produce their effects and are subsequently resourced and scaled up. This paper aims to explore the degree to which dose is currently understood as a distinct and well-defined implementation concept outside of clinical settings. Methods We searched four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EBM Reviews and Global Health) to identify original research articles published between 2000 and 2015 on health promotion interventions that contained the word ‘dose’ or ‘dosage’ in the title, abstract or keywords. We identified 130 articles meeting inclusion criteria and extracted data on how dose/dosage was defined and operationalised, which we then synthesised to reveal key themes in the use of this concept across health promotion interventions. Results Dose was defined in a variety of ways, including in relation to the amount of intervention delivered and/or received, the level of participation in the intervention and, in some instances, the quality of intervention delivery. We also observed some conflation of concepts that are traditionally kept separate (such as fidelity) either as slippage or as part of composite measures (such as ‘intervention dose’). Discussion Dose is not a well-defined or consistently applied concept in evaluations of health promotion interventions. While current approaches to conceptualisation and measurement of dose are suitable for interventions in organisational settings, they are less well suited to policies delivered at a population level. Dose often accompanies a traditional monotonic linear view of causality (e.g. dose response) which may or may not fully represent the intervention’s theory of how change is brought about. Finally, we found dose and dosage to be used interchangeably. We recommend a distinction between these terms, with ‘dosage’ having the advantage of capturing change to amount ‘dispensed’ over time (in response to effects achieved). Dosage therefore acknowledges the inevitable dynamic and complexity of implementation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0899-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Do Interactions With School Resource Officers Predict Students’ Likelihood of Being Disciplined and Feelings of Safety? Mixed-Methods Evidence From Two School Districts

“…In other words, we draw on conceptual models that suggest that the degree to which the criminalizing or supportive functions of SROs are felt by students is a function of the frequency of interaction with, feelings of trust in, and comfort with SROs experienced by students. This conceptual framing aligns with program evaluation literature that focuses on “dose-response,” or the idea that outcomes are responsive to the amount of an intervention experienced (Rossi et al, 2019; Rowbotham et al, 2019). Similarly, economic theory uses the concepts of extensive and intensive margins to refer to whether individuals are working (extensive margin) and how much they work (intensive margin; Blundell et al, 2013).…”

Process evaluation of TeamUp: a movement-based psychosocial intervention for refugee children in the Netherlands

“…More so, this might also indicate the high mobility and frequent relocation of refugee families within the Netherlands. Still, these findings call for improved monitoring, mobilisation and intervention adaptation, as regular attendance and active engagement are likely to impact positive outcomes [ 56 , 60 ]. Children also mentioned forgetting about the start time of TeamUp session.…”

“…However, given the frequent change in groups and reported aggression and conflict during the sessions, this may indicate children’s ongoing difficulties to self-regulate, and the need for more sessions and predictability in group composition for increased impact. Children’s low and irregular attendance and the open group structure of the intervention might have affected implementation quality and likely potential outcomes [ 5 , 56 ]. Whether regular or increased attendance would lead to quantifiable outcomes, will require further research.…”

Health Promotion Interventions: Lessons from the Transfer of Good Practices in CHRODIS-PLUS

“…However, the field needs to develop further to provide information about how to effectively implement health policies, programs, and practices that were proven to work [8]. Implementation science attempts to comprehend and work within real world conditions, instead of controlling for these conditions or to remove their influence as causal effects [9].…”

“…This is due to the fact that many interventions are complex and usually comprise multiple components. These components can act independently or interdependently, with the vital element for success being difficult to specify [9].…”