Generalisability is typically only briefly mentioned in discussion sections of evaluation articles, which are unhelpful in judging whether an intervention could be implemented elsewhere, with similar effects. Several tools to assess generalisability exist, but they are difficult to operationalise and are rarely used. We believe a different approach is needed. Instead of focusing on similarities (or more likely, differences) in generic population and setting characteristics, generalisability assessments should focus on understanding an intervention’s mechanism of action - why or how an intervention was effective. We believe changes are needed to four types of research. First, outcome evaluations should draw on programme theory. Second, process evaluations should aim to understand interventions’ mechanism of action, rather than simply ‘what happened’. Third, small scoping studies should be conducted in new settings, to explore how to enact identified mechanisms. Finally, innovative synthesis methods are required, in order to identify mechanisms of action where there is a lack of existing process evaluations.

中文翻译：

---

在评估普遍性时，仅关注人口差异或仅靠环境是不够的

普遍性通常仅在评估文章的讨论部分中简要提及，这对判断是否可以在其他地方实施干预具有类似效果没有帮助。存在几种评估泛化性的工具，但它们难以操作且很少使用。我们认为需要一种不同的方法。泛化性评估不应将重点放在一般人群的相似性（或更可能是差异）和设定特征上，而应着重于了解干预措施的作用机制-干预措施为何有效或如何有效。我们认为需要对四种类型的研究进行更改。首先，成果评估应借鉴计划理论。其次，过程评估应旨在了解干预措施的作用机制，而不是简单地“发生了什么”。第三，应该在新的环境中进行小型范围研究，以探索如何制定已确定的机制。最后，需要创新的合成方法，以便在缺乏现有过程评估的情况下确定作用机理。