scholarly journals Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Affengruber ◽  
Gernot Wagner ◽  
Siw Waffenschmidt ◽  
Stefan K. Lhachimi ◽  
Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Reference Standards ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Literature Searches

Abstract Background Decision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. Methods Using three cases studies, we evaluated a rapid review approach that consisted of a substantially abbreviated literature search and single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts. We used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the meta-analyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews. Results For the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21). ConclusionsWithin the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.

scholarly journals Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Affengruber ◽  
Gernot Wagner ◽  
Siw Waffenschmidt ◽  
Stefan K. Lhachimi ◽  
Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Reference Standards ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Literature Searches

Abstract Background Decision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. We aimed to explore the validity of a rapid review approach that combines a substantially abbreviated literature search with single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts using three case studies. Methods We used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the meta-analyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews. Results For the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21). Conclusions Within the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.

scholarly journals Case study research for better evaluations of complex interventions: rationale and challenges

BMC Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Paparini ◽  
Judith Green ◽  
Chrysanthi Papoutsi ◽  
Jamie Murdoch ◽  
Mark Petticrew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Case Study Research ◽  
Main Body ◽  
Case Study Methodology ◽  
Study Research ◽  
Empirical Case Studies

Abstract Background The need for better methods for evaluation in health research has been widely recognised. The ‘complexity turn’ has drawn attention to the limitations of relying on causal inference from randomised controlled trials alone for understanding whether, and under which conditions, interventions in complex systems improve health services or the public health, and what mechanisms might link interventions and outcomes. We argue that case study research—currently denigrated as poor evidence—is an under-utilised resource for not only providing evidence about context and transferability, but also for helping strengthen causal inferences when pathways between intervention and effects are likely to be non-linear. Main body Case study research, as an overall approach, is based on in-depth explorations of complex phenomena in their natural, or real-life, settings. Empirical case studies typically enable dynamic understanding of complex challenges and provide evidence about causal mechanisms and the necessary and sufficient conditions (contexts) for intervention implementation and effects. This is essential evidence not just for researchers concerned about internal and external validity, but also research users in policy and practice who need to know what the likely effects of complex programmes or interventions will be in their settings. The health sciences have much to learn from scholarship on case study methodology in the social sciences. However, there are multiple challenges in fully exploiting the potential learning from case study research. First are misconceptions that case study research can only provide exploratory or descriptive evidence. Second, there is little consensus about what a case study is, and considerable diversity in how empirical case studies are conducted and reported. Finally, as case study researchers typically (and appropriately) focus on thick description (that captures contextual detail), it can be challenging to identify the key messages related to intervention evaluation from case study reports. Conclusion Whilst the diversity of published case studies in health services and public health research is rich and productive, we recommend further clarity and specific methodological guidance for those reporting case study research for evaluation audiences.

scholarly journals Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Affengruber ◽  
Gernot Wagner ◽  
Siw Waffenschmidt ◽  
Stefan K. Lhachimi ◽  
Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
Literature Searches

Public-private partnerships and collaboration in digital health: a scoping review and case study analysis of applications during the COVID-19 pandemic (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nishali Kirit Patel ◽  
Elinor Wahal ◽  
Adriana Mancilla Galindo ◽  
Alejandra Rodarte ◽  
Tim Jesudason ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Public Private Partnerships ◽  
Search Results ◽  
Stage Process

BACKGROUND The emergence of digital technologies over the past decade has presented a novel opportunity to address healthcare challenges associated with COVID-19 and accelerate progress towards achieving the health-related goals under the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have played a vital role in scaling up digital health solutions and disseminating curated scientific information in the face of the infodemic. However, several challenges remain around the effectiveness of PPP-related digital solutions and antagonistic viewpoints of engaging the private sector. We sought to evaluate the role of public-private partnerships in the digital public health space during COVID-19 and identify key lessons learned and challenges in the uptake of digital health solutions globally. OBJECTIVE Electronic and grey literature search results from PubMed, Google, and Google Scholar were screened by one reviewer through a two-stage process. We included all relevant systematic reviews, interventional, observational, and descriptive studies published in English published from January 2020 to June 2021. Two case study analyses on digital health chatbots, informed by expert opinion, were also performed to assess for the role of public-private partnerships in advancing digital public health solutions. METHODS Electronic and grey literature search results from PubMed, Google, and Google Scholar were screened by one reviewer through a two-stage process. We included all relevant systematic reviews, interventional, observational, and descriptive studies published in English published from January 2020 to June 2021. Two case study analyses on digital health chatbots, informed by expert opinion, were also performed to assess for the role of public-private partnerships in advancing digital public health solutions. RESULTS Forty-five articles met the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis, the majority of which were secondary research. Results of the publications can be broadly categorized into three groups: (1) models and definitions of public-private partnerships used in the healthcare space; (2) purposes of and motivations of public-private partnerships in global public health; and (3) and facilitators, barriers, and challenges to date. CONCLUSIONS The literature review as well as the case studies analysis reveal that PPPs can represent a valid option for tackling global healthcare issues with a digital health approach. Further research is needed to complement the initial findings of the present paper, as well as to assess a wider pool of case studies and the different features that they might present.

scholarly journals Developing a methodological framework for organisational case studies: a rapid review and consensus development process

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Rodgers ◽  
Sian Thomas ◽  
Melissa Harden ◽  
Gillian Parker ◽  
Andrew Street ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Case Study Research ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Reporting Standards ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Consensus Process ◽  
Study Research ◽  
Two Samples

BackgroundOrganisational case study proposals can be poorly articulated and methodologically weak, raising the possible need for publication standards in this area.ObjectivesTo develop reporting standards for organisational case study research, with particular application to the UK National Health Service.DesignRapid evidence synthesis and Delphi consensus process.Data sourcesRelevant case studies and methods texts were identified through searches of library catalogues, key text and author searches, focused searching of health and social science databases and some targeted website searching.Review methodsThe reporting standards were developed in three stages: (1) a rapid review of the existing literature to identify items; (2) a modified Delphi consensus process to develop and refine content and structure; and (3) application of the high-consensus Delphi items to two samples of organisational case studies to assess their feasibility as reporting standards. Items for the Delphi consultation were identified from published organisational case studies and related methodological texts. Identified items were sent to a Delphi expert panel for rating over two rounds. Participants were also asked whether or not the provisional framework in which items were presented was appropriate, and were given the opportunity to adapt this alongside the content. In both rounds, the high-consensus threshold was set at 70% agreement among respondents for each item. High-consensus items from the Delphi consultation were then applied to previously identified case study publications to determine their relevance to the reporting of real-world organisational case studies and to better understand how the results of the Delphi consultation might best be implemented as a reporting standard.ResultsOne hundred and three unique reporting items were identified from 25 methodological texts; eight example case studies and 12 exemplar case studies did not provide any additional unique items. Thirteen items were ultimately rated as ‘Should be reported for all organisational case studies’ by at least 70% of respondents, with the degree of consensus ranging from 73% to 100%. As a whole, exemplar case studies [which had been provided by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)’s Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) programme as examples of methodologically strong projects] more consistently reported the high-consensus Delphi items than did case studies drawn from the literature more broadly.LimitationsTime and resource constraints prevented an initial ‘item-generation’ round in the Delphi consensus process. Items are therefore likely to have been influenced by the content, wording and assumptions of available literature.ConclusionsThe high-consensus items were translated into a set of 13 reporting standards that aim to improve the consistency, rigour and reporting of organisational case study research, thereby making it more accessible and useful to different audiences. The reporting standards themselves are intended primarily as a tool for authors of organisational case studies. They briefly outline broad requirements for rigorous and consistent reporting without constraining methodological freedom.Future workThese reporting standards should be included as part of the submission requirements for all organisational case studies seeking funding. Though these reporting standards do not mandate specific methods, if a reporting item is not reported for legitimate methodological reasons, the onus is on the author to outline their rationale for the reader.FundingThe NIHR HSDR programme.

scholarly journals Using unfolding case studies to better prepare the public health nutrition workforce to address the social determinants of health

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 180-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Palermo ◽  
Sue Kleve ◽  
Julia McCartan ◽  
Julie Brimblecombe ◽  
Megan Ferguson
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Social Determinants ◽  
Public Health Nutrition ◽  
Case Study Approach ◽  
The Public ◽  
Study Approach ◽  
The Social ◽  
Unfolding Case Studies

AbstractObjectiveThe public health nutrition workforce has been reported to be underprepared for practice. The present study aimed to test the ability of an unfolding case study approach to support the public health nutrition workforce for the workplace, with a focus on improved access to nutritious food.DesignTwo unfolding case studies were trialled with undergraduate students in two-hour workshops to enhance their capability to address access to nutritious food as a social determinant of health. The approach provided information about the case using a staged approach that supported learners to review and reply to information and then continue this process as the case became increasingly complex.SettingMelbourne, Australia.ParticipantsThirty-eight undergraduate nutrition and dietetics students.ResultsThe analysis revealed that the unfolding case study approach provided a place to challenge and deepen knowledge and think about the application of theory. As the cases developed and became more challenging, students were supported to consider appropriate approaches and recognised the constant evolution and dynamic nature of practice.ConclusionsThis learning activity challenged students and supported deep learning about possible solutions. It may also be useful at a graduate level and for continuous education of nutritionists and/or dietitians to empower the workforce to address the social determinants of health, rather than just acknowledging them as a set of barriers that prevent people and communities from achieving optimal health. Further work is required to investigate how unfolding case studies in curricula shape preparedness for practice of public health nutrition.

scholarly journals Plant health and its effects on food safety and security in a One Health framework: four case studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Rizzo ◽  
Maureen Lichtveld ◽  
Jonna A. K. Mazet ◽  
Eri Togami ◽  
Sally A. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Food Security ◽  
Food Safety ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
One Health ◽  
Plant Diseases ◽  
Plant Health ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
The One

AbstractAlthough healthy plants are vital to human and animal health, plant health is often overlooked in the One Health literature. Plants provide over 80% of the food consumed by humans and are the primary source of nutrition for livestock. However, plant diseases and pests often threaten the availability and safety of plants for human and animal consumption. Global yield losses of important staple crops can range up to 30% and hundreds of billions of dollars in lost food production. To demonstrate the complex interrelationships between plants and public health, we present four case studies on plant health issues directly tied to food safety and/or security, and how a One Health approach influences the perception and mitigation of these issues. Plant pathogens affect food availability and consequently food security through reductions in yield and plant mortality as shown through the first case study of banana Xanthomonas wilt in East and Central Africa. Case studies 2, 3 and 4 highlight ways in which the safety of plant-based foods can also be compromised. Case study 2 describes the role of mycotoxin-producing plant-colonizing fungi in human and animal disease and examines lessons learned from outbreaks of aflatoxicosis in Kenya. Plants may also serve as vectors of human pathogens as seen in case study 3, with an example of Escherichia coli (E. coli) contamination of lettuce in North America. Finally, case study 4 focuses on the use of pesticides in Suriname, a complex issue intimately tied to food security though protection of crops from diseases and pests, while also a food safety issue through misuse. These cases from around the world in low to high income countries point to the need for interdisciplinary teams to solve complex plant health problems. Through these case studies, we examine challenges and opportunities moving forward for mitigating negative public health consequences and ensuring health equity. Advances in surveillance technology and functional and streamlined workflow, from data collection, analyses, risk assessment, reporting, and information sharing are needed to improve the response to emergence and spread of plant-related pathogens and pests. Our case studies point to the importance of collaboration in responses to plant health issues that may become public health emergencies and the value of the One Health approach in ensuring food safety and food security for the global population.

Looking back: evolving public health perspectives on research impact

2020 ◽  
pp. 161-182
Author(s):  
Katherine E. Smith ◽  
Justyna Bandola-Gill ◽  
Nasar Meer ◽  
Ellen Stewart ◽  
Richard Watermeyer
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Historical Approach ◽  
Run Up ◽  
Looking Back ◽  
Over Time

This chapter takes a more historical approach, using public health as a case study to explore how views of efforts to stimulate and reward research impact have changed over time. To achieve this, the chapter compares the views of academics interviewed in 2003-2007, the run up to the RAE in 2008, just before the emergence of ‘research impact’, with the views of academics working in the same field in 2011-2015, who experienced REF2014 and the first attempt to assess impact case studies.

scholarly journals Quarantäne alleine oder in Kombination mit weiteren Public-Health-Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung der COVID-19 Pandemie: Ein Cochrane Rapid Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 82 (06) ◽  
pp. 501-506
Author(s):  
Verena Mayr ◽  
Barbara Nußbaumer-Streit ◽  
Gerald Gartlehner
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Rapid Reviews

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Die Coronavirus-Krankheit COVID-19 ist eine neue, sich rasch ausbreitende zoonotische Infektionskrankheit, die der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) erstmals am 31. Dezember 2019 gemeldet wurde. Da zurzeit keine wirksamen Medikamente oder Impfstoffe zur Behandlung oder Prävention von COVID-19 zur Verfügung stehen, rücken nicht-pharmakologische Public-Health-Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung der COVID-19 Pandemie stärker in den Fokus. Studienziele Ziel dieses Rapid Reviews war es, den Effekt von Quarantäne – alleine oder in Kombination mit weiteren Public-Health-Maßnahmen – zur Eindämmung von COVID-19 zu untersuchen. Methodik Der vorliegende Rapid Review wurde von der WHO in Auftrag gegeben. Um der Dringlichkeit der Anfrage gerecht zu werden, wurde die Methodik eines systematischen Reviews punktuell abgeändert. Die vorliegende Publikation umfasst die wichtigsten Aspekte des Rapid Reviews und wurde vom WHO Collaborating Centre an der Donau Universität Krems (Österreich) auf Deutsch übersetzt. Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden 29 Studien eingeschlossen. Zehn Modellierungsstudien befassten sich direkt mit COVID-19, 15 weitere Modellierungsstudien und 4 Beobachtungsstudien lieferten indirekte Evidenz zu SARS und MERS. Die Studien zeichneten alle ein ähnliches Bild – einen Vorteil von Quarantäne. Beispielsweise schätzten Modellierungsstudien, dass durch Quarantäne von Personen, die Kontakt mit Infizierten hatten 44–81% neuer Fälle und 31–63% an Todesfällen verhindert werden können, im Vergleich zu keinen Maßnahmen. Zwei Studien zu SARS zeigten, dass Quarantäne effektiver war und weniger kostete, je früher sie startete. Alleinige Quarantäne von Personen, die Kontakt mit Infizierten hatten, würde aber wahrscheinlich nicht ausreichen, um den Ausbruch von COVID-19 einzudämmen. Die Kombination mit anderen Maßnahmen wie physische Distanzierung oder Schulschließungen zeigte größere Effekte als Quarantäne alleine. Bei der individuellen Quarantäne für Rückkehrende aus Risikogebieten fand der Review vergleichsweise geringe Effekte. Schlussfolgerung Die Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Evidenz ist niedrig bzw. sehr niedrig, da die einzigen Studien zu COVID-19 Modellierungsstudien sind, die zwar aktuelle aber noch unsichere und unterschiedliche Parameter zur Modellberechnung verwendeten. Die indirekte Evidenz von SARS und MERS ist nur begrenzt auf COVID-19 übertragbar. Trotz dieser Limitationen, kommen alle Studien zu dem Schluss, dass Quarantäne eine wichtige Maßnahme ist, um die Pandemie einzudämmen. Im Hinblick auf die kommenden Monate ist es wichtig, das Infektionsgeschehen sowie die Auswirkungen der Maßnahmen genau zu überwachen, um die bestmögliche Balance der Maßnahmen zu finden.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document