Health Promotion International Advance Access originally published online on September 16, 2005
Health Promotion International 2005 20(4):367-374; doi:10.1093/heapro/dai022
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PERSPECTIVES |
Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions
1Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field, Australia, 2School of Health & Social Development, Deakin University, Australia and 3L. Anderson (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA); R. Bailie (Menzies School of Health Research, Institute of Advanced Studies, Charles Darwin University, Australia); G. Brunton [Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating (EPPI) Centre, Institute of Education, University of London, UK]; P. Hawe (University of Calgary, Canada); E. Kristjansson (University of Ottawa, Canada); L. Naccarella (University of Melbourne, Australia); S. Norris (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, USA); S. Oliver (EPPI-Centre, Institute of Education, University of London, UK); M. Petticrew (MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, UK); E. Pienaar (South African Cochrane Centre); J. Popay (Lancaster University, UK); H. Roberts (City University, UK); W. Rogers (Flinders University, Australia); J. Shepherd (University of Southampton, UK); A. Sowden (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK); H. Thomas (McMaster University and the Effective Public Health Practice Project, Canada)
Address for correspondence: N. Jackson Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field Australia E-mail: nickijackson{at}hotmail.com E. Waters School of Public Health Deakin University Australia E-mail: elizabeth.waters{at}deakin.edu.au
Systematic reviews of public health interventions are fraught with challenges. Complexity is inherent; this may be due to multi-component interventions, diverse study populations, multiple outcomes measured, mixed study designs utilized and the effect of context on intervention design, implementation and effectiveness. For policy makers and practitioners to use systematic reviews to implement effective public health programmes, systematic reviews must include this information, which seeks to answer the questions posed by decision makers, including recipients of programmes. This necessitates expanding the traditional evaluation of evidence to incorporate the assessment of theory, integrity of interventions, context and sustainability of the interventions and outcomes. Unfortunately however, the critical information required for judging both the quality of a public health intervention and whether or not an intervention is worthwhile or replicable is missing from most public health intervention studies. When the raw material is not available in primary studies the systematic review process becomes even more challenging. Systematic reviews, which highlight these critical gaps, may act to encourage better reporting in primary studies. This paper provides recommendations to reviewers on the issues to address within a public health systematic review and, indirectly, provides advice to researchers on the reporting requirements of primary studies for the production of high quality systematic reviews.
Key words: review; systematic; effectiveness; Public Health intervention
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. Armstrong, E. Waters, L. Moore, E. Riggs, L. G. Cuervo, P. Lumbiganon, and P. Hawe Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT J. Public Health Med., March 1, 2008; 30(1): 103 - 109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Braveman When do we know enough to recommend action? The need to be bold but not reckless J. Epidemiol. Community Health, November 1, 2007; 61(11): 931 - 931. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Mayo-Wilson Reporting Implementation in Randomized Trials: Proposed Additions to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement Am J Public Health, April 1, 2007; 97(4): 630 - 633. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. R Goldsmith, C. R Bankhead, and J. Austoker Synthesising quantitative and qualitative research in evidence-based patient information J. Epidemiol. Community Health, March 1, 2007; 61(3): 262 - 270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Young, E. Brunner, M Thorogood, K Rees, G Hewitt, W. Elizabeth, C. Summerbell, and H. Moore Cochrane Column Int. J. Epidemiol., June 1, 2006; 35(3): 538 - 540. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|