Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This study has updated the MRC's framework in the light of developments in complex intervention research since 2006, adopting a pluralist approach and encouraging the consideration and use of diverse research perspectives.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Kathryn Skivington, Lynsay Matthews, Sharon Anne Simpson, Peter Craig, Janis Baird, Jane M Blazeby, Kathleen Anne Boyd, Neil Craig, David P French, Emma McIntosh, Mark Petticrew, Jo Rycroft-Malone, Martin White & Laurence Moore.

Kathryn Skivington 1,*, Lynsay Matthews 1, Sharon Anne Simpson 1, Peter Craig 1, Janis Baird 2, Jane M Blazeby 3, Kathleen Anne Boyd 4, Neil Craig 5, David P French 6, Emma McIntosh 4, Mark Petticrew 7, Jo Rycroft-Malone 8, Martin White 9, Laurence Moore 1,*

1 Medical Research Council/Chief Scientist Office Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
2 Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
3 Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research and Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
4 Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
5 Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, UK
6 Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
7 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
8 Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
9 Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
* Corresponding author Email: Kathryn.skivington@glasgow.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions