Adaptations and modifications to a co-designed intervention and its clinical implementation: a qualitative study in Denmark

Table 3 Frameworks included in the analysis

Years	Framework	Points of interest
2013	Stirman et al.	Who made the adaptations?
		What was adapted?
		What was the level of the adaptation (e.g. content or context, individual patient or group of patients)?
		What was the nature of the adaptation (e.g. tailoring or adding)?
2019	The FRAME framework form Stirman	Was the adaptation planned?
		What were the goals of the adaptation?
		What were the reasons for the adaptation (e.g. sociopolitical, organizational)?
2013	The Framework of Moore	The fit can be either philosophical (i.e. aligned with the views of the practitioners and the organization) or logistical (i.e. aligned with the context and understood as, e.g. capacity, skills, and knowledge)
		The timing of the adaptation can be either proactive (i.e. planned) or reactive (i.e. haphazardly)
		The valence considers whether the adaptation aligns with the intervention’s goals, i.e. its core components, and can be either positive (i.e. aligned), neutral (i.e. neither aligned with nor deviated from) or negative (i.e. deviated from).
2011	Proctor’s framework	Acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost and sustainability

ISSN: 1472-6963