Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 13, 2025

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
Process evaluations nested in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions: a scoping review of approaches
Maartje Kletter1, Gill Norman2,3, Jo Dumville4
1Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. maartje.kletter@manchester.ac.uk.
Background:
The United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance for complex interventions recommends the nesting of process evaluations in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions. To date, there has been limited review of how the MRC guidance has been operationalised in RCTs of complex interventions.
Objectives:
This scoping review aimed to identify how process evaluations nested in RCTs on complex interventions have been conducted and reported since the 2015 publication of MRC guidance.
Methods:
We identified articles in PubMed and Scopus that cited the 2015 main journal article on the MRC guidance and applied an RCT filter to these articles. Studies reporting on RCT nested process evaluations in any field of health or social care were included. Data was extracted about study details, process evaluation study design, including methods used for data collection, data analyses, integration with RCT data and use of theory in process evaluation design.
Results:
We identified 160 RCTs and 53 pilot/feasibility RCTs. Most process evaluations included a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, either triangulated (mixed method studies) or not (multi-method studies). Most studies did not report the use of theory in shaping how the process evaluation was designed. Common methods for data analysis included descriptive statistics and thematic analysis for quantitative and qualitative studies respectively. There was limited triangulation of process evaluation data with RCT outcomes.
Conclusions:
Whilst process evaluations can be helpful in explaining outcomes of RCT interventions and subsequent implementation of these intentions, information gathered from process evaluations is often not fully reported in papers. There are currently no suitable reporting guidelines for process evaluations linked to RCTs; work to develop such guidelines, potentially as a StaRI checklist extension, would be valuable.
More Related Videos
04:53A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Blinding