BACKGROUND: Evidence-based public health decision-making depends on high quality and transparent accounts of what interventions are effective, for whom, how and at what cost. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized and non-randomized study designs through the CONSORT and TREND statements has had a marked impact on the quality of study designs. However, public health users of systematic reviews have been concerned with the paucity of synthesized information on context, development and rationale, implementation processes and sustainability factors. METHODS: This paper examines the existing reporting frameworks for research against information sought by users of systematic reviews of public health interventions and suggests additional items that should be considered in future recommendations on the reporting of public health interventions. RESULTS: Intervention model, theoretical and ethical considerations, study design choice, integrity of intervention/process evaluation, context, differential effects and inequalities and sustainability are often overlooked in reports of public health interventions. CONCLUSION: Population health policy makers need synthesized, detailed and high quality a priori accounts of effective interventions in order to make better progress in tackling population morbidities and inequalities. Adding simple criteria to reporting standards will significantly improve the quality and usefulness of published evidence and increase its impact on public health program planning.
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based public health decision-making depends on high quality and transparent accounts of what interventions are effective, for whom, how and at what cost. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized and non-randomized study designs through the CONSORT and TREND statements has had a marked impact on the quality of study designs. However, public health users of systematic reviews have been concerned with the paucity of synthesized information on context, development and rationale, implementation processes and sustainability factors. METHODS: This paper examines the existing reporting frameworks for research against information sought by users of systematic reviews of public health interventions and suggests additional items that should be considered in future recommendations on the reporting of public health interventions. RESULTS: Intervention model, theoretical and ethical considerations, study design choice, integrity of intervention/process evaluation, context, differential effects and inequalities and sustainability are often overlooked in reports of public health interventions. CONCLUSION: Population health policy makers need synthesized, detailed and high quality a priori accounts of effective interventions in order to make better progress in tackling population morbidities and inequalities. Adding simple criteria to reporting standards will significantly improve the quality and usefulness of published evidence and increase its impact on public health program planning.
Authors: Kenneth R McLeroy; Mary E Northridge; Hector Balcazar; Michael R Greenberg; Stewart J Landers Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Paul Montgomery; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Sally Hopewell; Geraldine Macdonald; David Moher; Sean Grant Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Eric I Benchimol; Liam Smeeth; Astrid Guttmann; Katie Harron; David Moher; Irene Petersen; Henrik T Sørensen; Jean-Marie Januel; Erik von Elm; Sinéad M Langan Journal: CMAJ Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Lora M Giangregorio; Lehana Thabane; Justin Debeer; Leonardo Farrauto; Neil McCartney; Jonathan D Adachi; Alexandra Papaioannou Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Antero Kesäniemi; Chris J Riddoch; Bruce Reeder; Steven N Blair; Thorkild Ia Sørensen Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Angela J Taft; Rhonda Small; Kelsey L Hegarty; Judith Lumley; Lyndsey F Watson; Lisa Gold Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-05-27 Impact factor: 3.295