Process Evaluation Frameworks in Community Mental Health

According to the PLOS One scoping review, process evaluation in community mental health shifted from participatory frameworks toward implementation science between 2006 and April 2025; the review mapped 83 studies and 54 primary frameworks across 14 categories (PLOS One). "The field has undergone a paradigm shift from community-engaged to systematized evaluation approaches, " the authors write (Mere et al., 2026).

• Mere et al. identified 83 studies published between 2006 and April 2025 and extracted 54 distinct primary frameworks, reported in PLOS One on July 28, 2026.
• Implementation science frameworks accounted for 39.8% of primary frameworks overall, rising from 14.3% in 2006–2015 to 52.0% in 2016–2020, according to Mere et al. in PLOS One.
• Participatory frameworks were primary in 23.8% of studies in 2006–2015 but appeared as primary frameworks in zero studies after 2015, according to Mere et al. in PLOS One.
• Geographic concentration was pronounced: 54.2% of included studies originated in North America and 83.1% in high-income countries, reported by Mere et al. in PLOS One.

The PLOS One scoping review found a measurable shift from participatory to implementation science frameworks in community mental health process evaluations between 2006 and April 2025.

According to Mere et al. in PLOS One, the authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost and screened 1, 143 records to arrive at 83 included studies; data extraction captured framework names, primary versus secondary use, geographic setting, study design, and publication year.

The review used an inductive typology-building process that organized 54 primary frameworks into 14 categories, with implementation science frameworks (determinant, evaluation, and process subtypes) dominating the landscape, as reported in PLOS One.

Researchers should choose frameworks that match their primary evaluation questions rather than picking a framework for prestige, according to recommendations drawn from the PLOS One review.

According to Mere et al. in PLOS One, determinant frameworks like CFIR are best when the goal is to identify implementation barriers and facilitators, evaluation frameworks like RE-AIM suit questions about reach and sustainability, and process frameworks guide attention to stages and activities.

According to Mere et al. in PLOS One, the decline of participatory frameworks as primary organizing approaches after 2015 raises the risk that community voice is positioned as supplementary rather than central, so researchers designing qualitative components should explicitly document how community input shaped study questions, instruments, and interpretation.

The PLOS One scoping review by Mere et al. documents a measurable shift in community mental health process evaluation from participatory organizing frameworks toward implementation science between 2006 and April 2025, and it highlights both the benefits of systematization and the risk of sidelining community partnership.

Qualitative and implementation teams should document framework choice, preserve participatory data through mixed analytic workflows, and adopt tools that make emergent community themes auditable within systematized frameworks.

If you run process evaluations and want to accelerate thematic synthesis, preserve participant quotations mapped to multiple frameworks, and keep sensitive data secure, Try Evidano for free.