Process Evaluation Frameworks in Community Mental Health

According to the PLoS One article From participation to systematization: A scoping review of theoretical frameworks guiding process evaluations in community mental health interventions, the field shifted from participatory frameworks toward implementation science between 2006 and 2025, with important tradeoffs for community voice and methodological consistency.

• 83 studies used 54 distinct primary frameworks across 2006–2025, according to the PLoS One review published on July 28, 2026.
• Implementation science frameworks accounted for 39.8% of primary frameworks (n = 33) across the sample, according to Mere et al. (2026).
• Participatory approaches were 23.8% of studies in 2006–2015 and disappeared as primary frameworks after 2015, according to the PLoS One article.
• North America produced 54.2% of included studies and high-income countries contributed 83.1% of studies, according to the PLoS One review.
• Mere et al. (2026) summarize the trend as a shift “from participation to systematization” and warn that community‑centred frameworks have been repositioned rather than integrated.

Answer: The scoping review documented a temporal and geographic reorientation of process evaluation frameworks in community mental health between 2006 and April 2025, using systematic searches and inductive typology development, according to Mere et al. (2026) in PLoS One.

According to the PLoS One study, the authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost and screened 1, 143 records to identify 83 eligible studies published between January 2006 and April 2025, and then extracted framework names, contexts, and methods for each included paper.

According to Mere et al. (2026), the 54 distinct primary frameworks were organized into 14 categories through iterative coding, and temporal trends were compared across three periods: 2006–2015, 2016–2020, and 2021–2025.

Direct quote: "We identified 83 studies employing 54 distinct primary frameworks, " (Mere et al., 2026, PLoS One).

Answer: Researchers should select frameworks based on intended evaluation questions and be explicit about what a chosen framework omits, according to the PLoS One typology and its authors.

According to Mere et al. (2026), implementation science frameworks are well suited when the evaluation question prioritizes determinants, reach, adoption, fidelity, and sustainment, whereas participatory frameworks foreground partnership, empowerment, and community-defined outcomes.

According to the PLoS One article, the shift toward implementation science increased comparability but risked reducing community epistemic authority, so evaluators should consider hybrid designs that combine systematization with meaningful participation.

Practical checklist for framework selection, informed by the PLoS One typology:

- If your priority is identifying implementation determinants, map your study to determinant frameworks such as CFIR, as suggested by Mere et al. (2026).

- If your priority is public health impact and scalability, consider evaluation frameworks such as RE-AIM, per the PLoS One findings.

- If your priority is community empowerment and co‑production, retain participatory methods as primary design elements or explicitly integrate them as core constructs rather than secondary notes, following community-engaged evaluation principles.

The PLoS One scoping review by Mere et al. (2026) documents a marked shift from participatory to systematized, implementation science frameworks in community mental health process evaluations between 2006 and April 2025, and it calls for tools and methods that preserve community voice while enabling comparability.

If your team needs to analyze interviews, focus groups, and documents and to test how different frameworks shape findings, AI-enabled thematic re-mapping shortens the work and makes comparisons auditable.

To try these workflows yourself, explore how Evidano handles transcription, thematic analysis, and cross-segment reporting; Try Evidano for free.