scholarly journals Systematic Review of Interventions Aiming to Improve Involvement in Physical Activity Among Adults With Intellectual Disability

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 434-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie Brooker ◽  
Kate van Dooren ◽  
Lyn McPherson ◽  
Nick Lennox ◽  
Robert Ware
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Health And Wellbeing ◽  
Health Promotion Programs ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Measurement Tools ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Background:Evidence suggests that most adults with intellectual disability do not participate in sufficient amounts of physical activity (PA). A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies that reported an intervention aiming to improve PA levels of adults with intellectual disability was conducted.Methods:Keywords related to intellectual disability and physical activity were used to search relevant databases. Studies were excluded if they did not measure PA as an outcome for adults with intellectual disability, were non-English, and were not peer-reviewed. All relevant studies were included in the review regardless of methodological quality and design.Results:Six articles met the inclusion criteria. These included health education or health promotion programs with PA, nutrition, and weight loss components. The quality of studies included in this review was generally poor. Most studies used a prepost design, sample sizes were small, and measurement tools were used that are not valid and reliable for the population assessed.Conclusions:PA interventions have the potential to improve the health and wellbeing of people with intellectual disability, a vulnerable group who require attention from public health practitioners and researchers. Given the health inequities that exist, public health researchers should target efforts to improve PA levels among this group.

scholarly journals Effective Contact Tracing for COVID-19: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl-Etienne Juneau ◽  
Anne-Sara Briand ◽  
Tomas Pueyo ◽  
Pablo Collazzo ◽  
Louise Potvin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Effective Contact ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Modelling Studies ◽  
Cautious Interpretation ◽  
Public Health Practitioners ◽  
Or Modelling

Background: Contact tracing is commonly recommended to control outbreaks of COVID-19, but its effectiveness is unclear. This systematic review aimed to examine contact tracing effectiveness in the context of COVID-19. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and All EBM Reviews were searched using a range of terms related to contact tracing for COVID-19. Articles were included if they reported on the ability of contact tracing to slow or stop the spread of COVID-19 or on characteristics of effective tracing efforts. Two investigators screened all studies. Results: A total of 32 articles were found. All were observational or modelling studies, so the quality of the evidence was low. Observational studies (n=14) all reported that contact tracing (alone or in combination with other interventions) was associated with better control of COVID-19. Results of modelling studies (n=18) depended on their assumptions. Under assumptions of prompt and thorough tracing with no further transmission, they found that contact tracing could stop an outbreak (e.g. by reducing the reproduction number from 2.2 to 0.57) or that it could reduce infections (e.g. by 24%-71% with a mobile tracing app). Under assumptions of slower, less efficient tracing, modelling studies suggested that tracing could slow, but not stop COVID-19. Conclusions: Observational and modelling studies suggest that contact tracing is associated with better control of COVID-19. Its effectiveness likely depends on a number of factors, including how many and how fast contacts are traced and quarantined, and how effective quarantines are at preventing further transmission. A cautious interpretation suggests that to stop the spread of COVID-19, public health practitioners have 2-3 days from the time a new case develops symptoms to isolate the case and quarantine at least 80% of its contacts, and that once isolated, cases and contacts should infect zero new cases. Less efficient tracing may slow, but not stop, the spread of COVID-19. Inefficient tracing (with delays of 4-5+ days or less than 60% of contacts quarantined with no further transmission) may not contribute meaningfully to control of COVID-19.

Framework for Physical Activity as a Complex and Multidimensional Behavior

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (s1) ◽  
pp. S11-S18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelley K. Pettee Gabriel ◽  
James R. Morrow ◽  
Anne-Lorraine T. Woolsey
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Physical Activity ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Human Movement ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Sedentary Behaviors ◽  
Instrument Selection ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Context:The selection of the most psychometrically appropriate self-report tool(s) to measure specific physical activity constructs has been a challenge for researchers, public health practitioners, and clinicians, alike. The lack of a reasonable gold standard measure and inconsistent use of established and evolving terminology have contributed to these challenges. The variation of self-report measures and quality of the derived summary estimates could be attributed to the absence of a standardized conceptual framework for physical activity.Objective:To present a conceptual framework for physical activity as a complex and multidimensional behavior that differentiates behavioral and physiological constructs of human movement.Process:The development of a conceptual framework can provide the basic foundation from which to standardize definitions, guide design and development of self-report measures, and provide consistency during instrument selection.Conclusions:Based on our proposed conceptual framework for physical activity, we suggest that physical activity is more clearly defined as the behavior that involves human movement, resulting in physiological attributes including increased energy expenditure and improved physical fitness. Utilization of the proposed conceptual framework can result in better instrument choices and consistency in methods used to assess physical activity and sedentary behaviors across research and public health practice.

scholarly journals Trends of Early Marriage in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review

Jurnal NERS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 277
Author(s):  
Suhariyati Suhariyati ◽  
Joni Haryanto ◽  
Ririn Probowati
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Early Marriage ◽  
Age Difference ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Background: Early marriage is being increasingly recognized globally as a fundamental violation of human rights and a major obstacle to sustainable development. Early marriage occurs globally to varying degrees, especially in developing countries. The purpose of this article was to identify the determinants and impact of early marriage in developing countries.Method: A systematic search for studies published from 2014 up to 2019 was conducted via Scopus, Proquest, Elsevier, Science Direct, Sage Journal, SpringerLink and EBSCO. A total of 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. These were independently extracted by two reviewers.Result: Education and place of residence were the most commonly studied determinants of early marriage. Only a few of them reported results concerning the age difference between the spouses, access to media information and self-efficiency. Early marriage has a relationship with both the mother's and child's health. However, the significance of these associations was often small or inconsistent.Conclusion: This review summarizes the best available evidence for local policymakers and public health practitioners so then they can consider incorporating these findings into the development of intervention protocols for the prevention of early marriage.

scholarly journals COVID-19 Surveillance Data: A Primer for Epidemiology and Data Science

2021 ◽  
pp. e1-e6
Author(s):  
Daniel Tarantola ◽  
Nabarun Dasgupta
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Data Science ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Surveillance Data ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Our primary objective is to improve COVID-19 metrics to enhance the quality of COVID-19 surveillance—an urgent need raised by several authors in professional and general media.1–5 We offer specific suggestions on how pandemic surveillance metrics can be better reported to improve the quality of analytical epidemiology. Health care providers and public health practitioners may find these criteria useful when conducting analyses, and students may be able to self-correct mistakes in written work. Data scientists may treat this as a primer for selecting and reporting metrics for dashboards. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print January 21, 2021: e1–e6. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306088 )

scholarly journals A new tool to assess community-level evidence to inform public health decision making

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Clark ◽  
S Snelling ◽  
J Beyers ◽  
C Howarth ◽  
S Neil-Sztramko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Community Level ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Abstract Background As public health responds to evolving challenges around the globe, it is critical to draw on community-level evidence to inform decisions on emerging needs. There are existing tools for assessing the quality of research evidence, but none that explicitly focus on quality assessment of evidence from community sources, including local health status and ever-changing community and political preferences and actions. Methods The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) in Canada has developed new tools, called Quality Assessment of Community Evidence (QACE), to help public health decision makers assess the quality of community evidence. The QACE tools were drafted through extensive review of existing frameworks, tools and measures for appraising population health and community evidence, and diverse key informants. We identified three consistent themes that became the core dimensions in these tools. By using the QACE tools, practitioners can answer the question: “Is the quality of this evidence about local context, community needs and political preferences good enough to influence decision making?” Results The QACE tools provide probing questions for each of three dimensions: relevant, trustworthy and equity-informed. Supplementary resources help users delve more deeply into different aspects of quality assessment. The QACE tools are intended for public health practitioners who provide and use evidence to support or make decisions about public health practice and policy, including public health practitioners, senior leaders, policy makers and funders. Conclusions The QACE tool is a new addition to the public health toolbox for evidence-informed decision making, providing questions to ask about evidence from community sources. By using the tool as part of a decision-making process, public health practitioners can be assured that their decisions are based on the best-available evidence for their communities. Key messages The new Quality Assessment of Community Evidence (QACE) tools fill the gap in assessing quality of community-level evidence for public health decision-makers. Community evidence, including local health status and needs and community and political preferences and actions, should be assessed for quality in three critical domains.

scholarly journals What makes a ‘successful’ collaborative research project between public health practitioners and academics? A mixed-methods review of funding applications submitted to a local intervention evaluation scheme

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter van der Graaf ◽  
Lindsay Blank ◽  
Eleanor Holding ◽  
Elizabeth Goyder
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Evaluation Scheme ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Abstract Background The national Public Health Practice Evaluation Scheme (PHPES) is a response-mode funded evaluation programme operated by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR). The scheme enables public health professionals to work in partnership with SPHR researchers to conduct rigorous evaluations of their interventions. Our evaluation reviewed the learning from the first five years of PHPES (2013–2017) and how this was used to implement a revised scheme within the School. Methods We conducted a rapid review of applications and reports from 81 PHPES projects and sampled eight projects (including unfunded) to interview one researcher and one practitioner involved in each sampled project (n = 16) in order to identify factors that influence success of applications and effective delivery and dissemination of evaluations. Findings from the review and interviews were tested in an online survey with practitioners (applicants), researchers (principal investigators [PIs]) and PHPES panel members (n = 19) to explore the relative importance of these factors. Findings from the survey were synthesised and discussed for implications at a national workshop with wider stakeholders, including public members (n = 20). Results Strengths: PHPES provides much needed resources for evaluation which often are not available locally, and produces useful evidence to understand where a programme is not delivering, which can be used to formatively develop interventions. Weaknesses: Objectives of PHPES were too narrowly focused on (cost-)effectiveness of interventions, while practitioners also valued implementation studies and process evaluations. Opportunities: PHPES provided opportunities for novel/promising but less developed ideas. More funded time to develop a protocol and ensure feasibility of the intervention prior to application could increase intervention delivery success rates. Threats: There can be tensions between researchers and practitioners, for example, on the need to show the 'success’ of the intervention, on the use of existing research evidence, and the importance of generalisability of findings and of generating peer-reviewed publications. Conclusions The success of collaborative research projects between public health practitioners (PHP) and researchers can be improved by funders being mindful of tensions related to (1) the scope of collaborations, (2) local versus national impact, and (3) increasing inequalities in access to funding. Our study and comparisons with related funding schemes demonstrate how these tensions can be successfully resolved.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document