Skip Navigation



Health Promotion International Advance Access published online on September 16, 2005
Health Promotion International, doi:10.1093/heapro/dai022
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrowOA All Versions of this Article:
20/4/367    most recent
dai022v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by JACKSON, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by JACKSON, N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2005). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Article

Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions

N. JACKSON 1*, E. WATERS 2, and for the Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Health Promotion and Public Health Taskforce 3

1 Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field, Australia
2 School of Health & Social Development, Deakin University, Australia

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
N. JACKSON, E-mail: nickijackson{at}hotmail.com


  Abstract

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.

Keywords: review; systematic; effectiveness; Public Health intervention.
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)
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J Public HealthHome page
A. R. Aro, J. Smith, and J. Dekker
Contextual evidence in clinical medicine and health promotion
Eur J Public Health, September 11, 2008; (2008) ckn082v1.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Public Health (Oxf)Home page
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]

Home page
 J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
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]

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
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]

Home page
 J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
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]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
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]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.