Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Health promotion effectiveness studies are challenging to identify. Since 2004, the EPPI-Centre has populated two publicly available citation registers through quarterly searches: Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions (TRoPHI) and Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER). Studies are coded with descriptive keywords. Coding is based on abstract for trials, and full text for reviews. Users can search using codes, freetext or both.
Aims: To describe content coverage and user behaviour of the two registers.
Methods: A retrospective analysis of (1) keywording on topic, study design, settings; and (2) user activity during 3 monthsin 2013.
Results: (1) Trials: TRoPHI comprised of 70% (n = 4357/6232) RCTs. Over one-third from USA, almost a third (29%) from unspecified locations; 5% from UK; over 10% from developing countries. Top five topics contributing 8–10% of studies: healthy eating, physical activity, tobacco, mental health and sexually transmitted diseases. Intervention setting is unspecified in 44% of abstracts; where stated, the most common are in school, home, community or workplace. (2) Reviews: DoPHER contained (69% (n = 2171/3130)) systematic reviews (e.g. stated methods and inclusion criteria). A meta-analysis was undertaken in 29% of reviews. Topics followed similar trends to the trials. (3) Users searching: Over 75% (n = 285) of searches were freetext only. Incorrect syntax was common in wildcard searches. Users were interested in diverse topics. Nine percent of searches were repeat visits.
Conclusions: Health promotion effectiveness research covers a diversity of topics. Authors could improve abstracts by including more detail on the intervention setting, country and intervention provider. Opportunities exist to make users more aware of the ability to search more effectively using topic keywords and correct syntax.
Aims: To describe content coverage and user behaviour of the two registers.
Methods: A retrospective analysis of (1) keywording on topic, study design, settings; and (2) user activity during 3 monthsin 2013.
Results: (1) Trials: TRoPHI comprised of 70% (n = 4357/6232) RCTs. Over one-third from USA, almost a third (29%) from unspecified locations; 5% from UK; over 10% from developing countries. Top five topics contributing 8–10% of studies: healthy eating, physical activity, tobacco, mental health and sexually transmitted diseases. Intervention setting is unspecified in 44% of abstracts; where stated, the most common are in school, home, community or workplace. (2) Reviews: DoPHER contained (69% (n = 2171/3130)) systematic reviews (e.g. stated methods and inclusion criteria). A meta-analysis was undertaken in 29% of reviews. Topics followed similar trends to the trials. (3) Users searching: Over 75% (n = 285) of searches were freetext only. Incorrect syntax was common in wildcard searches. Users were interested in diverse topics. Nine percent of searches were repeat visits.
Conclusions: Health promotion effectiveness research covers a diversity of topics. Authors could improve abstracts by including more detail on the intervention setting, country and intervention provider. Opportunities exist to make users more aware of the ability to search more effectively using topic keywords and correct syntax.