scholarly journals It's in your hands: the value of handsearching in conducting systematic reviews of public health interventions

2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 388-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Armstrong ◽  
N. Jackson ◽  
J. Doyle ◽  
E. Waters ◽  
F. Howes
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Public Health Interventions

scholarly journals An overview of systematic reviews of economic evaluations of pharmacy-based public health interventions: addressing methodological challenges

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzete Costa ◽  
Maria Cary ◽  
Dennis K. Helling ◽  
João Pereira ◽  
Céu Mateus
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
Pharmacy Interventions

Abstract Background Pharmacy interventions are a subset of public health interventions and its research is usually performed within the scope of a trial. The economic evaluation of pharmacy interventions requires certain considerations which have some similarities to those of public health interventions and to economic evaluations alongside trials. The objective of this research is to perform an overview of systematic reviews of economic evaluations of pharmacy services and triangulate results with recommendations for economic evaluations of both public health interventions and alongside trials. Methods (1) Exploratory review of recommendations on the economic evaluation of public health interventions, (2) exploratory review of recommendations for conducting economic evaluations alongside trials, (3) overview of systematic reviews of economic evaluations of pharmacy interventions (protocol registered with PROSPERO 2016 outlining information sources, inclusion criteria, appraisal of reviews and synthesis methods). Results Fourteen systematic reviews containing 75 index publications were included. Reviews reported favorable economic findings for 71% of studies with full economic evaluations. The types of economic analysis are diverse. Two critical quality domains are absent from most reviews. Key findings include the following: certain types of risk of bias, wider scope of study designs, and most economic quality criteria met but some issues unresolved or unclear. Triangulation revealed additional gaps. Limitations include choice of critical quality domains and potential biases in the overview process. Conclusions Economic evaluations of pharmacy-based public health interventions seem to follow most economic quality criteria, but there are still some issues in certain key areas to improve. These findings may assist in improving the design of pilot trials of economic evaluations in pharmacy, leading to robust evidence for payers. Based on the findings, we propose a methodological approach for the economic evaluation of pharmacy-based public health interventions. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016032768

scholarly journals Reducing stigma and discrimination associated with COVID-19: early stage pandemic rapid review and practical recommendations

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. C. Gronholm ◽  
M. Nosé ◽  
W. H. van Brakel ◽  
J. Eaton ◽  
B. Ebenso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
World Health ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Stigma And Discrimination ◽  
Evidence Summary ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Aims To develop recommendations for strategies and interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), through reviewing and synthesising evidence in relation to COVID-19 and other disease outbreaks and infectious/stigmatised conditions from systematic reviews and primary studies and recommendations from additional materials. Methods Rapid review, drawing on the World Health Organization's (WHO) methodology for developing interim guidelines during health emergencies. PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and Campbell Collaboration searched up to mid-April 2020. Searches were supplemented by reference-searching and expert recommendations. Searches were designed to identify: (1) systematic reviews (<10 years), or (2) primary intervention studies (no date limit) reporting evidence on anti-stigma interventions (in relation to COVID-19 or other infectious/stigmatised conditions) or (3) additional relevant materials. Data were extracted on population, intervention, outcome and results. These data were compiled into evidence summary tables and narrative overviews. Recommendations on strategies for COVID-19 stigma-reduction were developed using the WHO ‘Evidence to Decision’ framework approach. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42020177677). Results The searches identified a total of 4150 potentially relevant records, from which 12 systematic reviews and 29 additional articles were included. Overarching considerations and specific recommendations focus on: (1) language/words used in relation to COVID-19 and affected people; (2) media/journalistic practices; (3) public health interventions; (4) targeted public health interventions for key groups and (5) involving communities and key stakeholders. Conclusions These recommendations represent the first consolidated evidence-based guidance on stigma and discrimination reduction in relation to COVID-19. Mitigating the impact of stigma is critical in reducing distress and negative experiences, and strengthening communities' resolve to work together during exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, reducing stigma helps addressing structural inequalities that drive marginalisation and exacerbate both health risks and the impact of stigma. Administrations and decision makers are urged to consider integrating these recommendations into the ongoing COVID-19 response.

scholarly journals COVID-19: underpowered randomised trials, or no randomised trials?

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Atle Fretheim
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Face Mask ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Key Barrier

AbstractA recently published trial of face mask use to protect against COVID-19 demonstrated a key barrier to carrying out randomised trials in public health: the need for unattainably large sample sizes. For many public health interventions, the choice is not between sufficiently powered trials and underpowered trials, but between underpowered trials and no trials at all. Underpowered trials should be viewed as contributions to the larger body of evidence, alongside other studies of various sizes and designs, collectively assessed and synthesized in systematic reviews. Overemphasis on sample size calculation is probably more of a hindrance than a help to scientific progress.

Selecting Review Outcomes for Systematic Reviews of Public Health Interventions

2021 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 465-470
Author(s):  
Luke Wolfenden ◽  
Ani Movsisyan ◽  
Sam McCrabb ◽  
Jan M Stratil ◽  
Sze Lin Yoong
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
End Users ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Core Outcome Sets ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision

For systematic reviews to have an impact on public health, they must report outcomes that are important for decision-making. Systematic reviews of public health interventions, however, have a range of potential end users, and identifying and prioritizing the most important and relevant outcomes represents a considerable challenge. In this commentary, we describe potentially useful approaches that systematic review teams can use to identify review outcomes to best inform public health decision-making. Specifically, we discuss the importance of stakeholder engagement, the use of logic models, consideration of core outcome sets, reviews of the literature on end users’ needs and preferences, and the use of decision-making frameworks in the selection and prioritization of outcomes included in reviews. The selection of review outcomes is a critical step in the production of public health reviews that are relevant to those who use them. Utilizing the suggested strategies may help the review teams better achieve this.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document