Process Evaluation Frameworks for Community Mental Health

According to the PLoS One scoping review (Mere et al., 2026) PLoS One, community mental health process evaluation shifted from community-led participatory frameworks toward implementation science between 2006 and 2025.

• 54 distinct primary frameworks were used across 83 included studies published between January 2006 and April 2025, according to the PLoS One review (Mere et al., 2026).
• Implementation science frameworks accounted for 39.8% of primary frameworks (n = 33) in the 83-study sample in the PLoS One review (Mere et al., 2026), rising to over 50% of studies in the 2016–2020 period.
• Participatory frameworks represented 23.8% of studies in 2006–2015 but were not used as primary frameworks after 2015, a pattern the authors summarize as "From participation to systematization" (Mere et al., 2026).
• Geographic concentration was pronounced: North America contributed 54.2% of studies and high-income countries contributed 83.1% of studies, per Mere et al., 2026.

Answer: The authors conducted a scoping review of process evaluations of community mental health interventions published from 2006 to April 2025 to map framework use and temporal trends.

According to the PLoS One review (Mere et al., 2026), the authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost, identified 1, 143 records, and after screening included 83 studies that met eligibility criteria.

According to the PLoS One review (Mere et al., 2026), the team extracted framework names, categorized frameworks into a 14-category typology, and coded primary versus secondary framework use using explicit rules documented in their methods section.

The review measured temporal change by splitting the period into 2006–2015, 2016–2020, and 2021–2025, and reported both categorical shifts (for example, participatory vs implementation science) and per-framework frequencies (for example, RE-AIM n = 9, CFIR n = 8, MRC n = 6).

Answer: Qualitative teams should align framework choice with their primary evaluation question and explicitly document what the chosen framework makes visible and what it omits, following the recommendations of Mere et al., 2026.

If your primary goal is to identify determinants of implementation success, the PLoS One review (Mere et al., 2026) suggests determinant frameworks like CFIR are commonly used and supported by prior literature.

If your primary goal is to assess reach, adoption, and maintenance, the PLoS One review (Mere et al., 2026) indicates that RE-AIM is frequently applied and lends itself to mixed methods designs that combine interviews with service-usage data.

If your priority is community empowerment or partnership, the PLoS One review (Mere et al., 2026) warns that participatory frameworks have become less central as primary frameworks after 2015, so you must plan participatory methods and governance structures explicitly rather than assuming they will emerge.

Answer: The PLoS One scoping review (Mere et al., 2026) documents a clear shift in process evaluation frameworks for community mental health from participatory organizing frameworks toward implementation science between 2006 and 2025.

Practically, qualitative teams should choose frameworks that match their evaluation priorities, document choices transparently, and explicitly design participatory governance where community voice is a goal.

If you want to speed harmonized coding across frameworks and include community partners in analysis workflows, try Evidano to ingest transcripts, map codes to CFIR/RE-AIM/MRC constructs, and share redacted excerpts securely; learn more on our features page.

Next step: Try Evidano for free to prototype framework-aligned coding on your transcripts and published literature.