AI for Qualitative Analysis of Process Evaluations

According to the PLOS One scoping review (Mere et al., 2026), 83 process evaluations of community mental health interventions published between 2006 and 2025 used 54 distinct primary frameworks, revealing both consolidation and fragmentation in framework use. The PLOS One review documents a temporal shift: implementation science frameworks rose to dominance after 2015 while participatory frameworks that foregrounded community co‑evaluation largely disappeared as primary frameworks after 2015.

• 83 studies met inclusion criteria in the review covering January 2006 to April 2025, reported in PLOS One on July 28, 2026.
• 54 distinct primary frameworks appeared across those 83 studies, with implementation science frameworks accounting for 39.8% (n = 33) and participatory approaches only 6.0% (n = 5) as primary frameworks, according to PLOS One (Mere et al., 2026).
• Geographic concentration was strong: North America accounted for 54.2% of studies and high‑income countries 83.1%, raising concerns about global generalizability (PLOS One, 2026).

The PLOS One scoping review directly mapped which theoretical frameworks guided process evaluations in community mental health between January 2006 and April 2025.

According to PLOS One (Mere et al., 2026), the authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost, screened 1, 143 records, and included 83 studies after full‑text review using PRISMA‑ScR methods.

The review used inductive coding to group 54 named frameworks into 14 categories and then reported frequencies, time trends (2006–2015, 2016–2020, 2021–2025), and geographic patterns to characterize shifts from participatory to implementation science approaches.

Researchers designing qualitative analyses for process evaluations should match framework choice to evaluation goals and be explicit about tradeoffs.

According to PLOS One (Mere et al., 2026), determinant frameworks like CFIR suit questions about barriers and facilitators while evaluation frameworks like RE‑AIM suit reach and sustainability questions; participatory frameworks prioritize partnership, empowerment, and community‑led interpretation.

Because the PLOS One review found categorical consolidation around implementation science yet fragmentation across individual frameworks, qualitative teams should document why they selected specific frameworks and consider using secondary frameworks to fill conceptual gaps, as many studies in the review did.

The PLOS One scoping review (Mere et al., 2026) documents a shift from "From participation to systematization" and calls for approaches that combine rigor with meaningful stakeholder partnership: in the authors' words, moving toward "systematized participation."

For qualitative researchers, the practical next step is to select frameworks keyed to evaluation questions, document secondary frameworks, and preserve community codes during synthesis.

To accelerate that work, use AI‑assisted tools that ingest transcripts, harmonize codes, and produce auditable thematic maps; try Evidano’s thematic and transcription features to shorten manual work and keep community voice explicit.

Get started now by Try Evidano for free.