Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Judging the effectiveness of public health interventions (i.e., health promotion and prevention) includes assessment of both the methodological quality of evaluations and the relevance of interventions. Many interventions are complex and may involve different sectors and agencies, and it is sometimes argued that methodologically rigorous evaluations may miss anticipated effects. However, to our knowledge, it has not been described which criteria for study design and methodological quality are actually used by researchers who systematically review the effects of public health interventions.
Objectives: To describe criteria used to evaluate methodological quality used in systematic reviews (SRs) of effects of public health interventions.
Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out in 13 electronic data bases from January 2005 to January 2011 to identify SRs addressing effects of public health interventions. We included non-medical interventions targeting children, adults and older persons where health related outcomes were reported. We extracted data on 1)inclusion criteria for study design, 2)quality assessment of included primary studies, 3)meta-analysis, 4)grading of results and 5)first author affiliation. The most recent review from research milieus that had published two or more SRs was included.
Results: The literature search identified 7,850 references, 801 were read in full text, 644 publications were assessed as SRs. Data from the 125 selected SRs show that 1)inclusion criteria for study design involved randomised controlled trials (24%), studies with a control group (36%), no design limitations (29%) and no specification reported (11%), 2)quality assessment of primary studies was performed in 69% of the SRs, 3)meta-analysis was performed in 34% and 4)grading of the results was done in 7%.
Conclusions: Criteria regarding study design and assessments of methodological rigour were to a large extent applied in SRs evaluating the effect of public health interventions.
Objectives: To describe criteria used to evaluate methodological quality used in systematic reviews (SRs) of effects of public health interventions.
Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out in 13 electronic data bases from January 2005 to January 2011 to identify SRs addressing effects of public health interventions. We included non-medical interventions targeting children, adults and older persons where health related outcomes were reported. We extracted data on 1)inclusion criteria for study design, 2)quality assessment of included primary studies, 3)meta-analysis, 4)grading of results and 5)first author affiliation. The most recent review from research milieus that had published two or more SRs was included.
Results: The literature search identified 7,850 references, 801 were read in full text, 644 publications were assessed as SRs. Data from the 125 selected SRs show that 1)inclusion criteria for study design involved randomised controlled trials (24%), studies with a control group (36%), no design limitations (29%) and no specification reported (11%), 2)quality assessment of primary studies was performed in 69% of the SRs, 3)meta-analysis was performed in 34% and 4)grading of the results was done in 7%.
Conclusions: Criteria regarding study design and assessments of methodological rigour were to a large extent applied in SRs evaluating the effect of public health interventions.