Ani Movsisyan

Dr. Ani Movsisyan

The Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Pettenkofer School of Public Health, University of Munich (LMU), 81377 Munich, Germany
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
17 December 2019 in Implementation Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Ani MovsisyanAni Movsisyan
Ani Movsisyan
LALaura Arnold
Laura Arnold
RERhiannon Evans
Rhiannon Evans
BHBritt Hallingberg
Britt Hallingberg
GMGraham Moore
Graham Moore
EREva Rehfuess
Eva Rehfuess
Background: Adapting interventions that have worked elsewhere can save resources associated with developing new interventions for each specific context. While a developing body of evidence shows benefits of adapted interventions compared with interventions transported without adaptation, there are also examples of interventions which have been extensively adapted, yet have not worked in the new context. Decisions on when, to what extent, and how to adapt interventions therefore are not straightforward, particularly when conceptualising intervention effects as contingent upon contextual interactions in complex systems. No guidance currently addresses these questions comprehensively. To inform development of an overarching guidance on adaptation of complex population health interventions, this systematic review synthesises the content of the existing guidance papers. Methods: We searched for papers published between January 2000 and October 2018 in 7 bibliographic databases. We used citation tracking and contacted authors and experts to locate further papers. We double screened all the identified records. We extracted data into the following categories: descriptive information, key concepts and definitions, rationale for adaptation, aspects of adaptation, process of adaptation, evaluating and reporting adapted interventions. Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers, and retrieved data were synthesised thematically within pre-specified and emergent categories. Results: We retrieved 6694 unique records. Thirty-eight papers were included in the review representing 35 sources of guidance. Most papers were developed in the USA in the context of implementing evidence-informed interventions among different population groups within the country, such as minority populations. We found much agreement on how the papers defined key concepts, aims, and procedures of adaptation, including involvement of key stakeholders, but also identified gaps in scope, conceptualisation, and operationalisation in several categories. Conclusions: Our review found limitations that should be addressed in future guidance on adaptation. Specifically, future guidance needs to be reflective of adaptations in the context of transferring interventions across countries, including macro- (e.g. national-) level interventions, better theorise the role of intervention mechanisms and contextual interactions in the replicability of effects and accordingly conceptualise key concepts, such as fidelity to intervention functions, and finally, suggest evidence-informed strategies for adaptation re-evaluation and reporting. Trial registration: PROSPERO 2018, CRD42018112714.

5 February 2021 in Health Research Policy and Systems
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Ani MovsisyanAni Movsisyan
Ani Movsisyan
LAL. Arnold
L. Arnold
LCL. Copeland
L. Copeland
RER. Evans
R. Evans
HLH. Littlecott
H. Littlecott
ERE. Rehfuess
E. Rehfuess
Background: Implementing evidence-informed population health interventions in new contexts often requires adaptations. While the need to adapt interventions to better fit new contexts is recognised, uncertainties remain regarding why and when to adapt (or not), and how to assess the benefits (or not) of adaptation. The ADAPT Study aims to develop comprehensive guidance on adaptation. This scoping review informs guidance development by mapping and exploring how adaptation has been undertaken in practice, in public health and health services research. Methods: We searched seven databases from January 2000 and October 2018 to identify eligible studies for this scoping review and a related systematic review of adaptation guidance. We mapped the studies of adaptation by coding data from all eligible studies describing the methods, contexts, and interventions considered for adaptation. From this map, we selected a sample of studies for in-depth examination. Two reviewers extracted data independently into seven categories: description, key concepts, types, rationale, processes, evaluation methods, evaluation justification, and accounts of failures and successes. Results: We retrieved 6694 unique records. From 429 records screened at full text, we identified 298 eligible studies for mapping and selected 28 studies for in-depth examination. The majority of studies in our map focused on micro- (i.e., individual-) level interventions (84%), related to transferring an intervention to a new population group within the same country (62%) and did not report using guidance (73%). Studies covered a range of topic areas, including health behaviour (24%), mental health (19%), sexual health (16%), and parenting and family-centred interventions (15%). Our in-depth analysis showed that adaptation is seen to save costs and time relative to developing a new intervention, and to enhance contextual relevance and cultural compatibility. It commonly follows a structured process and involves stakeholders to help with decisions on what to adapt, when, and how. Conclusions: Adaptation has been undertaken on a range of health topics and largely in line with existing guidance. Significant gaps relate to adaptation of macro- (e.g., national-) level interventions, consideration of programme theories, mechanisms and contexts (i.e., a functional view of interventions), nuances around stakeholder involvement, and evaluation of the adapted interventions. Registration Open Science Framework, 2019, osf.io/udzma.

KBKatharina Boldt
Katharina Boldt
Michaela CoenenMichaela Coenen
Michaela Coenen
Ani MovsisyanAni Movsisyan
Ani Movsisyan
SVStephan Voss
Stephan Voss
EREva Rehfuess
Eva Rehfuess
CJCaroline Jung-Sievers
Caroline Jung-Sievers
The aim of this study was to identify interventions targeting children and their caregivers to reduce psychosocial problems in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and comparable outbreaks. The review was performed using systematic literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and COVID-19-specific databases, including the CDC COVID-19 Research Database, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Database on COVID-19 Research and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register and the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) up to 25th September 2020. The search yielded 6657 unique citations. After title/abstract and full text screening, 11 study protocols reporting on trials planned in China, the US, Canada, the UK, and Hungary during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. Four interventions targeted children ≥10 years directly, seven system-based interventions targeted the parents and caregivers of younger children and adolescents. Outcome measures encompassed mainly anxiety and depressive symptoms, different dimensions of stress or psychosocial well-being, and quality of supportive relationships. In conclusion, this systematic review revealed a paucity of studies on psychosocial interventions for children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research should be encouraged in light of the expected demand for child mental health management.

1 October 2016 in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Ani MovsisyanAni Movsisyan
Ani Movsisyan
GMG.J. Melendez-Torres
G.J. Melendez-Torres
PMPaul Montgomery
Paul Montgomery

16 May 2024 in The Lancet Global Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Ani MovsisyanAni Movsisyan
Ani Movsisyan
FWFlora Wendel
Flora Wendel
ABAlison Bethel
Alison Bethel
MCMichaela Coenen
Michaela Coenen
JKJoanna Krajewska
Joanna Krajewska
EREva Rehfuess
Eva Rehfuess
High levels of economic inflation can adversely affect societies and individuals in many ways. Although numerous studies explore the health implications of macroeconomic factors, systematic investigation of the inflation-health nexus has been scarce. We conducted a comprehensive scoping review mapping the literature on inflation and health. From 8923 screened records, 69 empirical studies were analysed. These studies explored a wide range of health-related risk factors (eg, diet, substance use, stress, and violence) and outcomes (eg, life expectancy, mortality, suicidal behaviour, and mental health) linked to inflation, across diverse contexts and timeframes. The findings suggest a predominantly negative effect of inflation on health, with specific socioeconomic groups facing greater risks. Our Review uncovers notable gaps in the literature, particularly in geographical coverage, methodological approaches, and specific health outcomes. Among global socioeconomic and geopolitical shifts, understanding and mitigating the health effects of inflation is of contemporary relevance and merits thorough academic attention.

1 February 2016 in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Ani MovsisyanAni Movsisyan
Ani Movsisyan
GMG.J. Melendez-Torres
G.J. Melendez-Torres
PMPaul Montgomery-Marks
Paul Montgomery-Marks