Article type
Abstract
"Background: In recent years, the level of public concern about environmental issues has been crucial in determining the effectiveness and long-term viability of policies aimed at mitigating environmental degradation. A notable gap exists in high-quality research that comprehensively evaluates the influence of public awareness on environmental change policies. To bridge this gap, researchers can utilize the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) standard in studying the impact of public perception on such policies, thereby facilitating the identification of valuable insights.
Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of the meta-analysis on the impact of public perception on environmental change policies.
Method: The systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of public perception on climate change policies, as of February 2024, have been collected from various databases. Four reviewers conducted qualification screening on the title, abstract, and subsequent full text, respectively. The data extraction is also completed in duplicate. We used the AMSTAR tool to evaluate report quality and investigated the correlation between various factors and AMSTAR scores.
Results: A total of 263 articles were screened, and 17 of them were ultimately determined to meet the conditions for further analysis. Using AMSTAR for evaluation, it was found that the overall quality of these studies was moderate, with an average (SD) score of 7.82 (1.20) and a maximum of 11 points. In addition, we found a positive correlation between compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and obtaining a higher AMSTAR score (OR=20, p<0.05; RR=7.3, p<0.05).
Conclusions: Following established reporting standards can improve the quality and replicability of specific field meta-analyses. It is recommended that researchers prioritize following established reporting guidelines, using tools such as AMSTAR, and pay more attention to the appropriateness of methods when studying the impact of public perception on environmental change policies, in order to improve the reproducibility, clarity, and overall quality of meta-analysis.
"
Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of the meta-analysis on the impact of public perception on environmental change policies.
Method: The systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of public perception on climate change policies, as of February 2024, have been collected from various databases. Four reviewers conducted qualification screening on the title, abstract, and subsequent full text, respectively. The data extraction is also completed in duplicate. We used the AMSTAR tool to evaluate report quality and investigated the correlation between various factors and AMSTAR scores.
Results: A total of 263 articles were screened, and 17 of them were ultimately determined to meet the conditions for further analysis. Using AMSTAR for evaluation, it was found that the overall quality of these studies was moderate, with an average (SD) score of 7.82 (1.20) and a maximum of 11 points. In addition, we found a positive correlation between compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and obtaining a higher AMSTAR score (OR=20, p<0.05; RR=7.3, p<0.05).
Conclusions: Following established reporting standards can improve the quality and replicability of specific field meta-analyses. It is recommended that researchers prioritize following established reporting guidelines, using tools such as AMSTAR, and pay more attention to the appropriateness of methods when studying the impact of public perception on environmental change policies, in order to improve the reproducibility, clarity, and overall quality of meta-analysis.
"