Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Intervention description is not enough: evidence from an in-depth multiple case study on the untold role and impact of context in randomised controlled trials of seven complex interventions
Authors: Wells, Mary
Williams, Brian
Treweek, Shaun
Coyle, Joanne
Taylor, Julie
Contact Email:
Keywords: RCT
Case study
Complex interventions
Issue Date: Jun-2012
Publisher: Biomed Central
Citation: Wells M, Williams B, Treweek S, Coyle J & Taylor J (2012) Intervention description is not enough: evidence from an in-depth multiple case study on the untold role and impact of context in randomised controlled trials of seven complex interventions, Trials, 13, Art. No.: 95.
Abstract: Background: A number of single case reports have suggested that the context within which intervention studies take place may challenge the assumptions that underpin randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, the diverse ways in which context may challenge the central tenets of the RCT, and the degree to which this information is known to researchers or subsequently reported, has received much less attention. In this paper, we explore these issues by focusing on seven RCTs of interventions varying in type and degree of complexity, and across diverse contexts. Methods: This in-depth multiple case study using interviews, focus groups and documentary analysis was conducted in two phases. In phase one, a RCT of a nurse-led intervention provided a single exploratory case and informed the design, sampling and data collection within the main study. Phase two consisted of a multiple explanatory case study covering a spectrum of trials of different types of complex intervention. A total of eighty-four data sources across the seven trials were accessed. Results: We present consistent empirical evidence across all trials to indicate that four key elements of context (personal, organisational, trial and problem context) are crucial to understanding how a complex intervention works and to enable both assessments of internal validity and likely generalisability to other settings. The ways in which context challenged trial operation was often complex, idiosyncratic, and subtle; often falling outside of current trial reporting formats. However, information on such issues appeared to be available via first hand 'insider accounts' of each trial suggesting that improved reporting on the role of context is possible. Conclusions: Sufficient detail about context needs to be understood and reported in RCTs of complex interventions, in order for the transferability of complex interventions to be assessed. Improved reporting formats that require and encourage the clarification of both general and project-specific threats to the likely internal and external validity need to be developed. In addition, a cultural change is required in which the open and honest reporting of such issues is seen as an indicator of study strength and researcher integrity, rather than a symbol of a poor quality study or investigator ability.
Type: Journal Article
DOI Link:
Rights: Originally appeared in: Trials, Volume 13, 06/2012. Published by BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Affiliation: HS Research - Stirling
NMAHP Research
University of Dundee
NMAHP Research
HS Research - Stirling

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
wellsetal_Trials_2012.pdf365.82 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.