OBJECTIVES: There have been a number of attempts to develop critical appraisal tools, but few have had a public health focus. This paper describes a new checklist with public health aspects. STUDY DESIGN: Review of previous appraisal instruments and pilot test of new checklist. METHODS: Criteria of particular reference to public health practice were added to well-established appraisal criteria. The checklist was piloted with 21 public health professionals, research staff or postgraduate students. RESULTS: The checklist is organized using the 'ask', 'collect', 'understand' and 'use' categories of the Population Health Evidence Cycle. Readers are asked to assess validity, completeness and transferability of the data as they relate to: the study question; key aspects of the methodology; possible public health implications of the key results; and the implications for implementation in their own public health practice. Of the 21 public health professionals that piloted the checklist, 20 said that they found the checklist useful and 18 would use it or recommend it in the future. Participants were prepared to commit to the majority of the questions, and there was good agreement with a consensus of 'correct' answers. CONCLUSIONS: The public health critical appraisal checklist adds public health aspects that were missing from previous critical appraisal tools.
OBJECTIVES: There have been a number of attempts to develop critical appraisal tools, but few have had a public health focus. This paper describes a new checklist with public health aspects. STUDY DESIGN: Review of previous appraisal instruments and pilot test of new checklist. METHODS: Criteria of particular reference to public health practice were added to well-established appraisal criteria. The checklist was piloted with 21 public health professionals, research staff or postgraduate students. RESULTS: The checklist is organized using the 'ask', 'collect', 'understand' and 'use' categories of the Population Health Evidence Cycle. Readers are asked to assess validity, completeness and transferability of the data as they relate to: the study question; key aspects of the methodology; possible public health implications of the key results; and the implications for implementation in their own public health practice. Of the 21 public health professionals that piloted the checklist, 20 said that they found the checklist useful and 18 would use it or recommend it in the future. Participants were prepared to commit to the majority of the questions, and there was good agreement with a consensus of 'correct' answers. CONCLUSIONS: The public health critical appraisal checklist adds public health aspects that were missing from previous critical appraisal tools.
Authors: Maureen Dobbins; Kara DeCorby; Paula Robeson; Heather Husson; Daiva Tirilis; Lori Greco Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-08-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Chen Yang; Mariona Pinart; Patrick Kolsteren; John Van Camp; Nathalie De Cock; Katharina Nimptsch; Tobias Pischon; Eamon Laird; Giuditta Perozzi; Raffaella Canali; Axelle Hoge; Marta Stelmach-Mardas; Lars Ove Dragsted; Stéphanie Maria Palombi; Irina Dobre; Jildau Bouwman; Peter Clarys; Fabio Minervini; Maria De Angelis; Marco Gobbetti; Jean Tafforeau; Oscar Coltell; Dolores Corella; Hendrik De Ruyck; Janette Walton; Laura Kehoe; Christophe Matthys; Bernard De Baets; Guy De Tré; Antoon Bronselaer; Angela Rivellese; Rosalba Giacco; Rosario Lombardo; Sofian De Clercq; Niels Hulstaert; Carl Lachat Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 8.701
Authors: Daniel Nyato; Evodius Kuringe; Mary Drake; Caterina Casalini; Soori Nnko; Amani Shao; Albert Komba; Stefan D Baral; Mwita Wambura; John Changalucha Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 3.295