Ancillary Care in Public Health Intervention Research in Low-Resource Settings: Researchers' Practices and Decision-Making

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 73-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly A. Taylor ◽  
Maria W. Merritt ◽  
Luke C. Mullany
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Health Intervention ◽  
Intervention Research ◽  
Health Intervention ◽  
Low Resource Settings ◽  
Low Resource ◽  
Ancillary Care

scholarly journals Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Hanckel ◽  
Mark Petticrew ◽  
James Thomas ◽  
Judith Green
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Qualitative Comparative Analysis ◽  
Public Health Intervention ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Intervention Research ◽  
Health Intervention

Abstract Background There is an increasing recognition that health intervention research requires methods and approaches that can engage with the complexity of systems, interventions, and the relations between systems and interventions. One approach which shows promise to this end is qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), which examines casual complexity across a medium to large number of cases (between 10 and 60+), whilst also being able to generalise across those cases. Increasingly, QCA is being adopted in public health intervention research. However, there is a limited understanding of how it is being adopted. This systematic review will address this gap, examining how it is being used to understand complex causation; for what settings, populations and interventions; and with which datasets to describe cases. Methods We will include published and peer-reviewed studies of any public health intervention where the effects on population health, health equity, or intervention uptake are being evaluated. Electronic searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (incorporating Social Sciences Citation Index and Arts & Humanities Citation Index), Microsoft Academic, and Google Scholar will be performed. This will be supplemented with reference citation tracking and personal contact with experts to identify any additional published studies. Search results will be single screened, with machine learning used to check these results, acting as a ‘second screener’. Any disagreement will be resolved through discussion. Data will be extracted from full texts of eligible studies, which will be assessed against inclusion criteria, and synthesised narratively, using thematic synthesis methods. Discussion This systematic review will provide an important map of the increasing use of QCA in public health intervention literature. This review will identify the current scope of research in this area, as well as assessing claims about the utility of the method for addressing complex causation in public health research. We will identify implications for better reporting of QCA methods in public health research and for reporting of case studies such that they can be used in future QCA studies. Systematic review registration PROSPERO, CRD42019131910

scholarly journals Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT

2008 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Armstrong ◽  
E. Waters ◽  
L. Moore ◽  
E. Riggs ◽  
L. G. Cuervo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Health Intervention ◽  
Intervention Research ◽  
Health Intervention

The spirit of the intervention: reflections on social effectiveness in public health intervention research

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morten Hulvej Rod ◽  
Liselotte Ingholt ◽  
Betina Bang Sørensen ◽  
Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Health Intervention ◽  
Intervention Research ◽  
Health Intervention ◽  
Social Effectiveness

scholarly journals A review of the quantitative effectiveness evidence synthesis methods used in public health intervention guidelines

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellesha A. Smith ◽  
Nicola J. Cooper ◽  
Alex J. Sutton ◽  
Keith R. Abrams ◽  
Stephanie J. Hubbard
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Public Health Intervention ◽  
Health Intervention ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Guidance Documents

Abstract Background The complexity of public health interventions create challenges in evaluating their effectiveness. There have been huge advancements in quantitative evidence synthesis methods development (including meta-analysis) for dealing with heterogeneity of intervention effects, inappropriate ‘lumping’ of interventions, adjusting for different populations and outcomes and the inclusion of various study types. Growing awareness of the importance of using all available evidence has led to the publication of guidance documents for implementing methods to improve decision making by answering policy relevant questions. Methods The first part of this paper reviews the methods used to synthesise quantitative effectiveness evidence in public health guidelines by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) that had been published or updated since the previous review in 2012 until the 19th August 2019.The second part of this paper provides an update of the statistical methods and explains how they address issues related to evaluating effectiveness evidence of public health interventions. Results The proportion of NICE public health guidelines that used a meta-analysis as part of the synthesis of effectiveness evidence has increased since the previous review in 2012 from 23% (9 out of 39) to 31% (14 out of 45). The proportion of NICE guidelines that synthesised the evidence using only a narrative review decreased from 74% (29 out of 39) to 60% (27 out of 45).An application in the prevention of accidents in children at home illustrated how the choice of synthesis methods can enable more informed decision making by defining and estimating the effectiveness of more distinct interventions, including combinations of intervention components, and identifying subgroups in which interventions are most effective. Conclusions Despite methodology development and the publication of guidance documents to address issues in public health intervention evaluation since the original review, NICE public health guidelines are not making full use of meta-analysis and other tools that would provide decision makers with fuller information with which to develop policy. There is an evident need to facilitate the translation of the synthesis methods into a public health context and encourage the use of methods to improve decision making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document