Background
Defining programme theory
Programme theory: A programme theory is the overarching theory or model of how an intervention is expected to work. The ‘theory’ in a programme theory “can be an articulation of practice wisdom or of tacit assumptions – that is, not only a formal, research-based theory” ([11], p. 33). A programme theory is made up of two components, a theory of change and a theory of action. | |
Theory of change: A theory of change explains the causal processes or hypothesised mechanisms that lead from activities to outcomes [12]. | |
Theory of action: A theory of action details what the programme or intervention will do in order to activate the change theory [11]. | |
Logic model: A logic model is a graphical representation of a programme theory, which maps out the links between the intervention and anticipated outcomes. |
Limitations of the systematic review guidance in helping reviews to operationalise a programme theory
Perceived value of programme theory use in systematic reviews
• Provide a theoretical basis for the review | |
• Aid reviewers in thinking conceptually to gain an initial understanding of the way in which the intervention is likely to work | |
• Assist in refining the review question and defining the scope of the review | |
• Identify points of uncertainty and provide the rationale for data collection and approach to synthesis | |
• Increase the transparency of the review process |
Operationalising programme theory in systematic reviews
Using programme theory to guide action on health inequalities
Level of actiona
| Underlying cause of heath inequality | Underlying programme theory |
---|---|---|
1) Strengthening individuals (using person-based strategies to improve the health of the most disadvantaged) | A perceived personal deficit, e.g. lack of knowledge, skills, beliefs, self-esteem | Actions that acknowledge positive strengths (i.e. assets and capabilities disadvantaged individuals possess) and remove barriers to achieving them will allow individuals to act in ways that improve their health |
2) Strengthening communities (building social cohesion and mutual support to improve the health of disadvantaged communities) | Greater social exclusion, isolation or powerlessness in disadvantaged communities | Fostering social interactions between members of the same community (horizontal interventions) could influence their local environment leading to healthier neighbourhoods. Improving social interactions across society (vertical interventions) produces a less divided society, builds inclusiveness and increases equitable access to resources for health |
3) Improving living and working conditions (improving infrastructure and access to services) | Greater exposure to health-damaging living and working environments with declining social position and poorer access to essential goods and services | Improving the physical environment and addressing psychosocial health hazards have the potential to improve the health of the whole population especially that of people living in the poorest conditions, thereby reducing the gradient in health |
4) Promoting healthy macro policies (making structural alterations to economic, cultural and environmental conditions to influence the standard of living of the whole population) | The standard of living, income, unemployment, job security, etc., are linked to wider macro-economic, cultural and environment conditions | Universal actions that aim to alter the macro-environment or cultural environment to reduce poverty span several sectors and work across the whole population. These actions are potentially more efficient in reducing poverty and tackling the socio-economic gradient |
Aim
Methods
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria
|
Further explanation
|
Published systematic reviews | With or without meta-analysis |
Assessed the effects of a non-pharmacological intervention on health behaviour or health outcome as primary outcome | Health behaviour is defined broadly as ‘any behaviour that may affect an individual’s physical health or any behaviour that an individual believes may affect their physical health’ ([78], p. 94) |
Measured or collected data on the effects of SES on the intervention | SES is defined as incorporating a measure of one or more of the following: income, education or occupation |
Reported either differential effects relating to SES (universal) or targeted low SES populations (targeted) | |
Published between January 2013 and May 2016 | The date period is selected to acknowledge the publication in 2012 of the Reporting Guidelines for Systematic Reviews with a Focus on Health Equity [1] |
Exclusion criteria
|
Further explanation
|
Included a primary outcome relating to a context other than health or health behaviour | |
Did not separate SES data from other equity considerations | For example, if it was not possible to separate data on ethnicity, age, or SES |
Did not examine the effectiveness of an intervention | |
Measured the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions | |
Protocols or primary study designs | |
Published in a language other than English | |
Full text was not available at the time of data collection and analysis |
Search strategy
• MEDLINE (Ovid) | |
• CINAHL (EbscoHost) | |
• The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (http://www.cochranelibrary.com/) • Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database (http://www.cochranelibrary.com/) | |
• Health Technology Assessments (http://www.cochranelibrary.com/) | |
• Database of promoting health effectiveness reviews (DoPHER) (https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/webdatabases4/Intro.aspx?ID=9) | |
• NIHR Journals Library (https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/) | |
• Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews (https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library.html) | |
• 3ie (International Initiative for Impact Evaluation) database of systematic reviews (http://www.3ieimpact.org/en/evidence/systematic-reviews/) | |
• Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.co.uk/) |
Data collection and analysis
Study selection
Quality assessment
1. PRISMA rationale (item 3): Describe assumptions about mechanism(s) by which the intervention is assumed to have an impact on health equity. The review should describe a priori how and why interventions are expected to work and the influence of factors such as setting and participant and programme characteristics | |
2. Rationale (item 3A): Provide the logic model/analytical framework, if done, to show the pathways through which the intervention is assumed to affect health equity and how it was developed | |
3. Discussion/conclusions (item 26): Present extent and limits of applicability (what does/does not work) to disadvantaged populations of interest and describe the evidence and logic (how/why) underlying those judgements |
Data extraction and synthesis
Results
Search results
Included study characteristics
Author | Intervention | Population/setting | Outcomes (relevant to SES) | Type of synthesis | Type of studies included | No. of studies included in review | Did review aim to consider ‘what works, for SES’? (Method of analysis) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SES focus | |||||||
Backholer et al. [28] | Sugar-sweetened beverage tax | High-income countries | Differential effects on beverage purchases and consumption, weight, amount paid in SSB taxes | Narrative | Any study design | 11 | – |
Individual-, community- and societal-level interventions aimed at reducing inequalities in obesity | Children (0–18 years) in any setting in any country | Targeted/differential effects on proxy for body fat (weight and height, BMI, waist measurement/waist-to-hip proportion, percentage body fat content, skinfold thickness, ponderal index in relation to childhood obesity) | Meta-analysis/narrative | RCT, nRCT, prospective/retrospective cohort studies, prospective repeat cross-sectional studies | 76 (25 measured differential effects by SES) | ✓ (descriptive analysis, sensitivity analysis) | |
Individual-, community- and societal-level interventions aimed at reducing inequalities in obesity | Adults (≥ 18 years) in any setting in any country | Targeted/differential effects on proxy for body fat (weight and height, BMI, waist measurement/ waist-to-hip proportion, percentage body fat content, skinfold thickness, ponderal index in relation to childhood obesity) | Meta-analysis/narrative | RCT, nRCT, prospective/retrospective cohort studies, prospective repeat cross-sectional studies | 103 (36 measured differential effects by SES) | ✓ (descriptive analysis, sensitivity analysis) | |
Beauchamp et al. [33] | Public health obesity prevention | Interventions addressed everyone across the social gradient | Differential effects on change in anthropometric outcomes | Narrative | Any study design | 14 | ✓ (descriptive analysis) |
Boelsen-Robinson et al. [34] | Whole of community obesity prevention | Interventions across different socio- economic strata | Differential effects on behavioural change, energy balance, anthropometric outcomes | Narrative | Any study design | 13 | ✓ (descriptive analysis) |
Community pharmacy delivered interventions focused on alcohol misuse, smoking cessation and weight management | People of any age in any country | Targeted/differential effects on behavioural outcome (e.g. quit rate, change in alcohol intake), weight loss interventions had to report anthropometric outcome | Meta-analysis/narrative | RCTs, nRCTs, CBAs, ITS and repeated measure studies | 24 | ✓ (descriptive analysis) | |
Brown et al. [37] | Population-level tobacco control | Adults (≥ 18 years) or studies which measured children’s reports of parental smoking in a country at stage 4 of the tobacco epidemic or in the WHO European Region | Differential effects on smoking related outcomes: Social norms/attitudes, exposure to second-hand smoke, policy reach, use of quitting services, quit attempts, smoking prevalence, morbidity | Narrative | All primary study designs, including: RCT, non-RCT, cohort studies, cross-sectional, qualitative | 117 | – |
Brown et al. [38] | Individual-level smoking cessation interventions undertaken in Europe since 1995 | Adults (≥ 18 years) based in a WHO European Region country | Differential effects on smoking cessation | Narrative | All primary research designs, including RCT, non-RCT, cohort studies, cross-sectional, qualitative | 29 | – |
Brown et al. [39] | Population-level interventions/policy- and individual-level cessation support | Participants (birth–25 years) in a country in the WHO European Region or non-European country at stage 4 of the tobacco epidemic | Differential effects on smoking-related outcomes: Intentions/ attitudes/perceptions, exposure to second-hand smoke, smoking behaviour, sensitivity to price, initiation, relapse, cessation rates, smoking prevalence, morbidity | Narrative | All primary research designs, including RCT, non-RCT, cohort studies, cross-sectional, qualitative | 38 | – |
Bull et al. [40] | Interventions targeting a change in smoking, eating and/or physical activity behaviours | Adults (≥ 18 years) of low income and from the general population | Behavioural outcomes relevant to smoking cessation, healthy eating and physical activity | Meta-analysis | RCTs and cluster RCTs | 35 | – |
Cleland et al. [41] | Any intervention focused on increasing physical activity | Community-dwelling socio-economically disadvantaged women (19–64 years) | Physical activity outcome, or closely related (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness) | Meta-analysis | RCTs, nRCTs | 19 | ✓ (subgroup-analysis, meta-regression) |
Everson-Hock et al. [42] | Community-based physical activity and dietary | Adults (18–74 years) from a low SES group within the UK | Effectiveness, acceptability | Narrative (mixed-methods) | Quantitative intervention studies, qualitative evaluations of interventions, qualitative studies assessing beliefs and perceptions of physical activity | 35 | – |
Gardner, et al. [43] | Interventions that aimed to increase mammography use | Asymptomatic low-income women | Uptake of mammography | Meta-analysis | RCT | 21 | ✓ (subgroup and meta-regression) |
Hill et al. [44] | Tobacco control | Adults (≥ 18 years) in countries at an advanced stage of the tobacco epidemic | Targeted/differential effects on smoking related outcomes | Narrative | Reviews and primary research | 84 | – |
Hollands et al. [45]c
| Portion, package or tableware size | Adults and children directly engaged with manipulated products | Differential effects on behavioural outcomes (consumption or selection of food, alcohol, or tobacco products) | Meta-analysis/narrative | RCTs | 70 | ✓ (meta-regression) |
Kader et al. [46] | Universal parental support targeting children’s health behaviours | At least one parent/caregiver of a child 2–18 years. with or without their child | Targeted/differential effects on children’s dietary habits, physical activity, sedentary behaviour, weight status | Narrative | Prospective studies assessing effectiveness of a controlled intervention | 35 (6 with SES focus) | – |
Kendrick et al. [47] | Home safety interventions | Children and young people (≤ 19 years) and their families | Differential effects on self-reported or medically attended injury in children/young people | Meta-analysis (IPD)/narrative | RCTs, nRCTs, CBA | 98 | – |
Kristjansson et al. [48] | Supplementary feeding | Children (3 months–5 years) from socio-economically disadvantaged groups or all socio-economic groups with results stratified by SES | Targeted/differential effects on physical (growth), psychosocial health in children | Meta-analysis/narrative | RCTs, c-RCTs, CCT, CBA, ITS | 32 | ✓ (sub-group analysis and process evaluation) |
Laba et al. [49] | Strategies to increase patient adherence to cardiovascular medications | Socioeconomically disadvantaged adults with prescribed medications for prevention/treatment of cardiovascular disease | Targeted/differential effects on patient adherence | Narrative | RCTs, quasi-RCTs | 14 | ✓ (descriptive analysis) |
Laws et al. [50] | Obesity prevention | Healthy children (0–5 years from) socioeconomically disadvantaged or Indigenous families | Targeted/differential effects on anthropometric measures, child/family diet, parental feeding practices related to obesity, physical activity, sedentary behaviours | Narrative | Any study design | 32 | ✓ (descriptive analysis) |
Magnee et al. [51] | Obesity prevention | Participants included within studies identified from a systematic inventory (1990–2007) of Dutch obesity prevention interventions | Differential effects on anthropometric measures, obesity-related behavioural outcomes (e.g. diet, physical activity) | Narrative | Studies selected from a systematic inventory (1990–2007) of Dutch obesity prevention interventions | 26 | – |
McGill et al. [52] | Promotion of healthy eating | Healthy populations (any age/gender) | Differential effects on dietary intake | Narrative | Any study design measuring effects of intervention | 36 | ✓ (descriptive analysis) |
McLean et al. [20]d
| Reminder systems for scheduled health service encounters | Examined differential effectiveness across particular subgroups of the population (age, gender, ethnic group, SES, etc.) | Differential effects on improving uptake | Thematic/narrative | Effectiveness review: RCTs, SRs Realist informed review: studies examining effectiveness of outpatient appointment reminders, qualitative/quantitative designs on appointment attendance behaviour, studies of adherence to treatment, theories/ models/frameworks relating to appointment attendance | Effectiveness review: 42 Realist informed review: 463 | ✓ (descriptive analysis, realist informed review) |
Mizdrak et al. [53] | Food/beverage price change | NR | Differential response in purchase of targeted foods | Narrative | Controlled experimental study | 8 | ✓ (descriptive analysis) |
Moore et al. [54] | Universal school-based health behaviour | School children (4–18 years) | Differential effects on diet, physical activity, smoking, alcohol | Narrative | RCTs, quasi-experimental studies | 20 | ✓ (content analysis) |
Moredich et al. [55] | Physical activity and weight loss | Low-income adult women | Change in weight | Integrative | Intervention studies | 7 | ✓ (descriptive analysis) |
Rojas-Garcia et al. [56] | Healthcare interventions to treat depressive disorders | Socially disadvantaged patients with depressive disorders | Reduction of depressive symptoms | Meta-analysis/narrative | Controlled trials including RCTs & quasi-experimental studies | 15 | ✓ (meta-regression) |
Sarink et al. [57] | Menu labelling | Adolescents or adults of a low SEP population or analysis stratified by a measure of SEP | Targeted/differential effects on awareness of exposure, understanding, food or energy purchased or consumed, body mass index | Narrative | Quantitative and qualitative | 18 | – |
SES accounted for | |||||||
Ciciriello et al. [58]e
| Multimedia-based patient education about prescribed or over the counter medications | People of all ages prescribed a particular medication or medication regimen or who had obtained an over-the-counter medication | Patient or carer knowledge about the medication, any measure of skill acquisition related to the medication | Meta-analysis/narrative | RCTs, quasi-RCTs | 24 | – |
Ejemot-Nwadiaro et al. [59]e
| Hand-washing promotion | Adults and children in day care centres or schools, patients in hospitals, communities or households | Episodes of diarrhoea | Meta-analysis/narrative | RCTs, cluster RCTs | 22 | – |
Gittelsohn et al. [60] | Community-based prepared food sources | NR | Access to and consumption of healthful foods (psychosocial factors (awareness, knowledge, acceptability), behaviour, frequency of use, frequency of purchase, increase in healthful food sales) | Narrative | Some form of written documentation that included a description of the intervention and evaluation | 19 | – |
Gurol-Urganci et al. [61]e
| Mobile phone messaging reminders | All study participants, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity | Rate of attendance at healthcare appointments | Meta-analysis | RCTs | 8 | – |
Hartmann-Boyce et al. [62] | Self-help | Adults (≥ 18 years) with body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2
| Targeted/differential effects on change in weight | Meta-analysis/narrative | RCTs | 23 | ✓ (meta-regression) |
Kroon et al. [63] | Structured self-management education programmes for osteoarthritis (OA) | People diagnosed with OA | Self-management of OA, participant’s positive and active engagement in life, pain, global OA scores, self-reported function, quality of life, withdrawals | Meta-analysis | RCTs, quasi-RCTs | 29 | – |
Lutge et al. [64]c
| Any material inducement to return for TB test results or adhere to or complete anti-TB preventive or curative treatment | People receiving curative treatment for active TB, people receiving preventive therapy for latent TB or people suspected of TB undergoing, and collecting results of, diagnostic tests | Cure or completion of treatment, cases of active TB; completion of prophylactic treatment, number returning to collect test results within the appropriate time frame for that test. | Meta-analysis/narrative | RCTs | 12 | – |
Pega et al. [65]c
| In-work tax credits | Working age adults (18–64 years) | Self-rated general health, mental health or physical distress, mental illness, overweight and obesity, alcohol use, tobacco use | Narrative | CBA, ITS | 5 | – |
Polec et al. [66]c
| Interventions that aimed to increase the ownership and appropriate use of insecticide-treated bednets (ITN) | Children and adults with permanent residence in malarial areas | ITN ownership, appropriate ITN use | Meta-analysis/narrative | RCTs, cluster RCTs, non-RCTs, CBA, ITS | 10 | – |
Quality assessment
Author | PRISMA rationale (item 3): Describe assumptions about mechanism(s) by which the intervention is assumed to have an impact on health equity. The review should describe a priori how and why interventions are expected to work and the influence of factors such as setting and participant and programme characteristics | PRISMA rationale (item 3A): Provide the logic model/analytical framework, if done, to show the pathways through which the intervention is assumed to affect health equity and how it was developed | Discussion/conclusions (item 26): Present extent and limits of applicability (what does/does not work) to disadvantaged populations of interest, and describe the evidence and logic (how/why) underlying those judgements |
---|---|---|---|
Backholer et al., [28]a
| ✓ | ✓ | |
Bambra et al., [29]b, d
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Bambra et al., [29]c, d
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Beauchamp et al., [35] | ✓ | ✓ | |
Boelsen-Robinson et al., [34]a
| ✓ | ✓ | |
Brown et al., [36]d, e
| ✓ | ✓ | |
Brown et al., [37]a, d
| ✓ | ||
Brown et al., [38]a
| ✓ | ||
Brown et al., [39]a
| ✓ | ||
Bull et al., [40] | ✓ | ✓ | |
Ciciriello et al., [58] | ✓ | ✓ | |
Cleland et al., [41] | ✓ | ||
Ejemot-Nwadiaro et al., [59] | ✓ | ||
Everson-Hock et al., [42] | ✓ | ✓ | |
Gardner et al., [43] | ✓ | ||
Gittelsohn et al., [60] | ✓ | ✓ | |
Gurol-Urganci et al., [61] | ✓ | ||
Hartmann-Boyce et al., [62] | ✓ | ✓ | |
Hill et al., [44] | ✓ | ||
Hollands et al., [45]a, d
| ✓ | ✓ | |
Kader et al., [46] | ✓ | ||
Kendrick et al., [47] | ✓ | ||
Kristjansson et al., [48] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Kroon et al., [63] | ✓ | ||
Laba et al., [49]d
| ✓ | ✓ | |
Laws et al., [50] | ✓ | ✓ | |
Lutge et al., [64] | ✓ | ✓ | |
Magnee et al., [51] | ✓ | ✓ | |
McGill et al., [52]a
| ✓ | ✓ | |
McLean et al., [20]d
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Mizdrak et al., [53] | ✓ | ||
Moore et al., [54] | ✓ | ✓ | |
Moredich et al., [55] | ✓ | ||
Pega et al., [65]d
| ✓ | ✓ | |
Polec et al., [66] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Rojas-Garcia et al., [56] | ✓ | ✓ | |
Sarink et al., [57]a
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Total | 28 | 8 | 31 |
How reviewers rationalise an understanding of if, what and how/why interventions have differential effects in or across socio-economic populations
Defining programme theory terminology
‘If’ interventions work/do not work for different socio-economic groups
‘What’ interventions work/do not work for different socio-economic groups
‘How’ interventions work/do not work for different socio-economic groups
Legitimisation of programme theory in systematic reviews
No. of studies | Theoretical literature |
---|---|
White M, Adams J, Heywood P. How and why do interventions that increase health overall widen inequalities within populations? In: Barbones S, editor. Health, inequality and public health. Volume 65. Bristol: Policy Press; 2009. | |
Whitehead M. A typology of actions to tackle social inequalities in health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007; 61:473–8. /link?doi=10.1136/jech.2005.037242 | |
McLaren L, McIntyre L, Kirkpatrick S. Rose’s population strategy of prevention need not increase social inequalities in health. Int J Epidemiol. 2010; 39:372–7. | |
2 [29]a
| Graham H, Kelly M. Health inequalities: concepts, frameworks and policy. London: Health Development Agency; 2004. |
2 [29]a
| European strategies for tackling social inequities in health: levelling up part 2. Available at: http://www.who.int/social_determinants/resources/leveling_up_part2.pdf |
2 [29]a
| Whitehead M, Dahlgren G. Concepts and principles for tackling social inequities in health: levelling up Part 1. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2006. |
1 [44] | Graham H. Unequal lives: health and socio-economic inequalities. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University Press; 2007. |
1 [62] | Mackenbach JP. The persistence of health inequalities in modern welfare states: the explanation of a paradox. Soc Sci Med. 2012; 75(4):761–9. |
1 [64] | Phelan JC, Link BG, Tehranifar P. Social conditions as fundamental causes of health inequalities theory, evidence, and policy implications. J Health Soc Behav. 2010; 51(1 suppl): S28–40. |
1 [52] | Frieden TR. A framework for public health action: the health impact pyramid. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100:590–5. |
1 [55] | Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychol Rev. 1977; 84:191–225. |
1 [49] | Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011; 6:42. |
1 [40] | Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behaviour change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2013; 46:81–95. |
1 [52] | Grier S, Bryant CA. Social marketing in public health. Annu Rev. Public Health. 2005;26:319–39 |
1 [36] | Hardeman W, Sutton S, Griffin S, Johnston M, White A, Wareham NJ, et al. A causal modelling approach to the development of theory-based behaviour change programmes for trial evaluation. Health Educ Res. 2005; 20:676–87. /link?doi=10.1093/her/cyh022 |
1 [20] | Coomes CM, Lewis MA, Uhrig JD, Furberg RD, Harris JL, Bann CM. Beyond reminders: a conceptual framework for using short message service to promote prevention and improve healthcare quality and clinical outcomes for people living with HIV. AIDS Care. 2012; 24:348–57. |
1 [20] | Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J, editors. Action-control: from cognition to behavior. Heidelberg: Springer; 1985. pp. 11–39. |
1 [20] | Prochaska JO, Norcross JC, DiClemente CC. Changing for good: the revolutionary program that explains the six stages of change and teaches you how to free yourself from bad habits. New York, NY: W. Morrow; 1994. |
1 [20] | Deci EL, Ryan RM. An overview of self-determination theory. In: Ryan RM, editor. The Oxford handbook of human motivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 85–107. |
1 [20] | Phillips KA, Morrison KR, Andersen R, Aday LA. Understanding the context of healthcare utilization: assessing environmental and provider-related variables in the behavioral model of utilization. Health Serv Res. 1998; 33:571–96. |
1 [20] | Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol. 1975; 91:93–4. /link?doi=10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803 |
1 [20] | Glasser W. Choice theory: a new psychology of personal freedom. London: Harper Collins; 2009. |
1 [20] | Cooper HC, Geyer R. What can complexity do for diabetes management? Linking theory to practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009; 15:761–5. /link?doi=10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01229.x |
1 [36] | Nuffield Intervention Ladder. In: Policy process and practice. Public Health: Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2009. |
Extent of use of programme theory to inform the review process
Review initiation: Indicate whether reported that PT is used to communicate aims of review in engaging with stakeholder or involving/recruiting different team members or obtaining funding | Review question/methodology: Indicate whether reported that PT is based on, or adapted from, existing tools/theories | Review question/background: Indicate assumptions on what intervention(s) may be likely to work/not work for SES populations? (a priori PT) | Review question/background: Indicate assumptions on how/why intervention(s) may be likely to work/not work for SES populations? (a priori PT) | Search strategy (selection criteria): Indicate whether reported that PT is used to make decisions on the inclusion criteria for studies in the review | Description of study characteristics: Indicate whether reported that PT is used to make decisions on coding information on study characteristics (data extraction) | Quality and relevance assessment: Indicate whether reported that PT is used as reference point in choosing quality assessment tools | Used to guide analyses: State that they specifically used their PT of how the intervention may work to guide the analysis | Synthesis: Present their synthesis based on their PT | Discussion/Conclusion: Use programme theory to explain what intervention(s) may be likely to work/not work for SES populations at the end of the review to explain their findings? (a posteriori PT) | Discussion/Conclusion: Revise or revisit or state their programme theory of how the intervention is likely to work’ at the end of the review to explain their findings? (a posteriori PT) | Additional considerations: Indicate whether reported that tool is based on shared consensus across the team or across stakeholders | Additional considerations: Was PT tested? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Backholeret al. [28] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Bambra et al. [29]a
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
Bambra et al. [29]b
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
Beauchamp et al. [33] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Boelsen-Robinson et al. [34] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Brown et al. [36]c
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Brown et al. [37] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
Brown et al. [38] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
Brown et al. [39] | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||
Bull et al. [50] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Ciciriello et al. [58] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Cleland et al. [41] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
Ejemot-Nwadiaro et al. [59] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
Everson-Hock et al. [42] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Gardner et al. [43] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
Gittelsohn et al. [60] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
Gurol-Urganci et al. [61] | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||
Hartmann-Boyce et al. [62] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Hill et al. [44] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
Hollands et al. [45] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Kader et al. [46] | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||
Kendrick et al. [47] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
Kristjansson et al. [48] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Kroon et al. [63] | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||
Laba et al. [49] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Laws et al. [50] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Lutge et al. [64] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
Magnee et al. [51] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
McGill et al. [52] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
McLean et al. [20] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Mizdrak et al. [53] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
Moore et al. [54] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Moredich et al. [55] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
Pega et al. [65] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
Polec et al. [66] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Rojas-Garcia et al. [56] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Sarink et al. [57] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Total | 2 | 15 | 32 | 28 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 15 | 15 | 34 | 31 | 2 | 21 |