Table 2.
Rationale | Summarised statements from proposals and protocols |
---|---|
Patient voice or engagement (1) |
Engage service users in driving research process. Giving users a ‘voice’ in the evaluation of a health technology of which they will be the recipients |
Optimise the trial process / Develop the best processes to maximise the success of the trial (4) |
Optimise overall trial process |
Phase 1: Develop qualitative model to understand perceptions and inform strategies for full trial | |
Phase 2: Modify trial procedures and documentation in feasibility phase | |
Improve recruitment and consent procedures for main trial (2) |
Development of training programme with individual feedback for staff involved in recruitment. Recommend recruitment strategies most likely to promote recruitment into the main trial |
To pilot and develop trial procedures including modeling consent procedures for main trial | |
Generate theories and models to guide intervention development (2) |
Build conceptual model of [] preferences that will be explored in a subgroup of randomised [participants] |
Gain an insider’s perspective from which a theoretical framework regarding subjective experience of service users can be developed | |
Generate theories to guide the trial and health community (1) |
Develop theoretical model of HTA practice / Develop a critical understanding of social processes and practices implicated in development, implementation and dissemination of a RCT in the field of HTA |
Optimise implementation into clinical practice (6) |
Inform future development of services of this intervention |
Process evaluation will provide important generalizable information for wider health community about acceptability [in service] | |
|
Inform the roll out of the intervention to the wider community |
Inform commissioners and service providers to contribute to maximisation of quality and uptake of [intervention] | |
Assess the feasibility of delivering [intervention] in NHS | |
Interpret trial findings (especially unexpected findings) (5) |
Understand and explain any differences in outcome between intervention sites |
Insight into possible explanations for differential success of intervention | |
Interpret trial results to understand why intervention did work / work to further interpret and illuminate the findings from the trial itself | |
Influence the interpretation of the outcome data / identify unanticipated outcomes and barriers to change | |
Other (5) | Understand, as well as quantify, the process and outcome of care |
Bring together the views of different research participants | |
Explore range of resource use for economic analysis | |
Provide new insights into patients’ views and experiences of [intervention] and usual care | |
Provide a richer understanding of patient and carer perceptions to complement quantitative data |
1Numbers in brackets represent the number of incidences that this category or sub-category was mentioned in the proposals we analysed. All text in square brackets has been removed / summarized to maintain anonymity.