From Participation to Systematization: Process Evaluation Frameworks

According to the PLOS One scoping review published July 28, 2026, the field moved from community-participatory frameworks to systematized implementation science frameworks between 2006 and 2025 (PLOS One).

• The review searched 1, 143 records and included 83 studies published between 2006 and April 2025, as reported in PLOS One on July 28, 2026.
• PLOS One found 54 distinct primary frameworks organized into 14 categories, with implementation science frameworks accounting for 39.8% overall (n = 33) in the 83-study sample.
• PLOS One reports participatory approaches made up 23.8% of early studies in 2006015 but were absent as primary frameworks after 2015, while implementation science rose to over 50% in 2016020.
• Geographic concentration was heavy: PLOS One reports North America contributed 54.2% of studies and high-income countries contributed 83.1% of studies, raising equity concerns.

Answer: The PLOS One scoping review mapped framework usage in process evaluations of community mental health interventions from 2006 to April 2025 and quantified temporal and geographic trends.

The PLOS One team searched PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost and identified 1, 143 records, from which 83 studies met inclusion criteria, as described in the Methods section of the PLOS One article published July 28, 2026.

The PLOS One review recorded 54 distinct primary frameworks and inductively organized them into 14 categories; implementation science frameworks were the largest category at 39.8% (n = 33), with CFIR and RE-AIM among the most frequent individual frameworks.

The PLOS One review grouped the time series into three periods: 2006015, 2016020, and 2021025; participatory frameworks clustered in 2006015 (23.8%) and were not used as primary frameworks after 2015, while implementation science frameworks rose from 14.3% to 52.0% in 2016020, according to PLOS One.

Answer: Researchers should match framework choice to evaluation questions and explicitly document why one framework was selected over others, because the PLOS One review shows framework choice structures what is observed and reported.

PLOS One recommends that researchers justify framework selection and consider mixing frameworks when single frameworks omit key dimensions; the review found 73% of studies (n = 61) referenced at least one secondary framework, indicating common hybrid use.

PLOS One highlights equity implications: with 54.2% of studies from North America and 83.1% from high-income countries, external validity for low- and middle-income contexts is limited and adaptation or alternative frameworks may be necessary.

PLOS One notes that consolidation around implementation science increases comparability but risks sidelining community authority and partnership when participatory frameworks are not used as organizing structures.

The PLOS One scoping review published July 28, 2026 documents a move from participation to systematization in community mental health process evaluation, quantifying 54 frameworks across 83 studies and offering a 14-category typology to guide framework selection.

Researchers should match frameworks to evaluation questions, transparently report primary and secondary frameworks, and prioritize equity when applying frameworks developed in high-income settings, as highlighted by PLOS One.

Evidano helps teams reconcile systematization and community partnership by automating coding, enabling collaborative review, and supporting accurate transcription and translation through speech-to-text tools.

To test these workflows on your data, Try Evidano for free.