Literature DB >> 10806978

Developing an evidence-based Guide to Community Preventive Services--methods. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services.

P A Briss1, S Zaza, M Pappaioanou, J Fielding, L Wright-De Agüero, B I Truman, D P Hopkins, P D Mullen, R S Thompson, S H Woolf, V G Carande-Kulis, L Anderson, A R Hinman, D V McQueen, S M Teutsch, J R Harris.   

Abstract

Systematic reviews and evidence-based recommendations are increasingly important for decision making in health and medicine. Over the past 20 years, information on the science of synthesizing research results has exploded. However, some approaches to systematic reviews of the effectiveness of clinical preventive services and medical care may be less appropriate for evaluating population-based interventions. Furthermore, methods for linking evidence to recommendations are less well developed than methods for synthesizing evidence. The Guide to Community Preventive Services: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations (the Guide) will evaluate and make recommendations on population-based and public health interventions. This paper provides an overview of the Guide's process to systematically review evidence and translate that evidence into recommendations. The Guide reviews evidence on effectiveness, the applicability of effectiveness data, (i.e., the extent to which available effectiveness data is thought to apply to additional populations and settings), the intervention's other effects (i.e., important side effects), economic impact, and barriers to implementation of interventions. The steps for obtaining and evaluating evidence into recommendations involve: (1) forming multidisciplinary chapter development teams, (2) developing a conceptual approach to organizing, grouping, selecting and evaluating the interventions in each chapter; (3) selecting interventions to be evaluated; (4) searching for and retrieving evidence; (5) assessing the quality of and summarizing the body of evidence of effectiveness; (6) translating the body of evidence of effectiveness into recommendations; (7) considering information on evidence other than effectiveness; and (8) identifying and summarizing research gaps. Systematic reviews of and evidence-based recommendations for population-health interventions are challenging and methods will continue to evolve. However, using an evidence-based approach to identify and recommend effective interventions directed at specific public health goals may reduce errors in how information is collected and interpreted, identify important gaps in current knowledge thus guiding further research, and enhance the Guide users' ability to assess whether recommendations are valid and prudent from their own perspectives. Over time, all of these advantages could help to increase agreement regarding appropriate community health strategies and help to increase their implementation.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10806978     DOI: 10.1016/s0749-3797(99)00119-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  138 in total

Review 1.  Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions.

Authors:  L Rychetnik; M Frommer; P Hawe; A Shiell
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition.

Authors:  Russell E Glasgow; Edward Lichtenstein; Alfred C Marcus
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 3.  A glossary for evidence based public health.

Authors:  Lucie Rychetnik; Penelope Hawe; Elizabeth Waters; Alexandra Barratt; Michael Frommer
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  Chronic disease control in public health practice: looking back and moving forward.

Authors:  Ross C Brownson; Frank S Bright
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.792

5.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Authors:  David Atkins; Dana Best; Peter A Briss; Martin Eccles; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Signe Flottorp; Gordon H Guyatt; Robin T Harbour; Margaret C Haugh; David Henry; Suzanne Hill; Roman Jaeschke; Gillian Leng; Alessandro Liberati; Nicola Magrini; James Mason; Philippa Middleton; Jacek Mrukowicz; Dianne O'Connell; Andrew D Oxman; Bob Phillips; Holger J Schünemann; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Helena Varonen; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Stephanie Zaza
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-06-19

6.  Evidence-based clinical guidelines for immigrants and refugees.

Authors:  Kevin Pottie; Christina Greenaway; John Feightner; Vivian Welch; Helena Swinkels; Meb Rashid; Lavanya Narasiah; Laurence J Kirmayer; Erin Ueffing; Noni E MacDonald; Ghayda Hassan; Mary McNally; Kamran Khan; Ralf Buhrmann; Sheila Dunn; Arunmozhi Dominic; Anne E McCarthy; Anita J Gagnon; Cécile Rousseau; Peter Tugwell
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 7.  The effects of gatekeeping: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Marcial Velasco Garrido; Annette Zentner; Reinhard Busse
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 2.581

Review 8.  Interventions that Address Intimate Partner Violence and HIV Among Women: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Khiya J Marshall; Dawnovise N Fowler; Mikel L Walters; Amanda B Doreson
Journal:  AIDS Behav       Date:  2018-10

9.  The Guide to Community Preventive Services and Disability Inclusion.

Authors:  Cynthia F Hinton; Lewis E Kraus; T Anne Richards; Michael H Fox; Vincent A Campbell
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Prediction of health professionals' intention to screen for decisional conflict in clinical practice.

Authors:  France Légaré; Ian D Graham; Annette C O'Connor; Michèle Aubin; Lucie Baillargeon; Yvan Leduc; Jean Maziade
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.