Many researchers conduct a process evaluation alongside an effectiveness trial of a public health intervention to better understand mechanisms behind observed effects. Yet, there is no standardised, scientifically accepted guideline for reporting such process evaluations, which impedes interpretation and comparison of study results. The aim of this project was to develop a consensus-based and expert-based guideline for reporting process evaluations of public health interventions conducted alongside an effectiveness trial.

We conducted an e-Delphi study with a large panel of international experts.

Based on purposive sampling, we invited 137 international experts that had been involved in the design of process evaluations, researchers who published high-profile process evaluations or frameworks, editors of journals that publish process evaluations, and authors of other reporting guidelines.

Based on a literature search, a first draft of the reporting guideline included 32 items, which was proposed to panel members during the first round. Of the invited 137 invited international experts, 73 (53%) participated in at least one round of the e-Delphi study. Participants rated the inclusion and comprehensibility of the proposed items on a 5-point Likert scale and provided comments and suggestions for relevance and definitions of the items. Adjustments to the items and descriptions were proposed to the e-Delphi panel until consensus of ≥67% for each individual item was reached. In total, 64 (88% of 73) completed round 2, and 55 (76% of 73) completed round 3. This resulted in 19 items that are included in the consensus-based process evaluation reporting guideline for public health intervention studies (CONPHES) guideline. The items cover a detailed description of the intervention that is evaluated, the implementation strategies applied, and underlying causal pathways, and the role of the delivery and support team. The guideline also requires describing the evaluation framework and how evaluation outcomes were assessed. Lastly, the guideline includes items on providing a detailed description of applied analyses (both quantitative and qualitative) and measures for assuring quality. The guideline is accompanied by an Explanation and Elaboration document, with a more detailed explanation of each item.

We expect that the CONPHES reporting guideline for process evaluations of public health interventions can improve the reporting of process evaluations of interventions aimed at promoting public health. This can potentially facilitate more effective translation of public health research into practice and contribute to improving both individual and population health outcomes.

Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most frequently performed operations in the paediatric population and can be performed according to two approaches: open or laparoscopic. At present, decisive evidence about the best treatment strategy is lacking and consequently, there is an ongoing debate about the most (cost-)effective treatment for the paediatric inguinal hernia. The aim of the Hernia Endoscopic oR opeN repair In chIldren Analysis—trial (HERNIIA2-trial) is to estimate the (cost-)effectiveness of the laparoscopic percutaneous internal ring suturing (PIRS) technique compared with open repair in children aged 0–16 years with a primary unilateral inguinal hernia.

A national multicentre randomised controlled trial will be performed including 464 children aged 0–16 years with a primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Patients will be randomised between the open or PIRS technique. The primary outcome is the number of reoperations within 2 years after primary surgery. Secondary outcome measures are: operative and postoperative complications, total duration of surgery, postoperative pain, length of admission, time to normal daily activities, cosmetic appearance of the scar, social and healthcare costs and health-related quality of life. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness will be assessed from a societal and healthcare perspective.

The protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Hospital. Informed consent will be obtained by parents and, if possible, according to age, by patient. The study will be conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (2013) and in accordance with the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) and Good Clinical Practice. Study findings will be disseminated through scientific publications, conferences and patient-friendly materials. The national study network of participating centres will facilitate rapid dissemination and implementation within the Netherlands and potentially abroad.

ClinicalTrials.gov PRS (ID NCT06451432).

In the Netherlands, approximately 2200 major amputations of the lower extremities are performed each year, the majority in vascular patients. Around 61% of these patients will develop postamputation pain (PAP). PAP is a severe, lifelong, disabling condition profoundly affecting quality of life. During amputations, the common practice is to cut the nerves without employing nerve-surgical techniques to prevent chronic pain due to neuroma formation. In recent years, targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) has been the most frequently studied technique for treating PAP, inhibiting neuroma formation by rerouting the cut mixed nerve to a functional motor nerve. We hypothesise that a primary TMR procedure during major lower limb amputations will result in a lower prevalence of PAP.

We propose a national, multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled trial comparing TMR with traction neurectomy in major amputations of the lower extremities in patients with vascular disease. 203 patients will be recruited with an indication for a transfemoral to transtibial amputation as a primary or secondary sequela of vascular disease. The subjects are randomly assigned to the TMR group or the traction neurectomy group. PAP will be evaluated 1 year postoperatively as the primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, mobility, neuropathic pain, hospital anxiety and depression, cost-effectiveness and complications.

This study has been reviewed and approved by the local ethical review body, ‘The Medical Ethics Committee Leiden The Hague Delft’, under the reference: P24.073 on 28 November 2024. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

NCT06719245. Dutch trial registry: NL87196.058.24