Namita Vaidya1, Anilkrishna B Thota1, Krista K Proia1, Sara Jamieson1, Shawna L Mercer1, Randy W Elder1, Paula Yoon1, Rachel Kaufmann1, Stephanie Zaza1. 1. At the time of study, Namita Vaidya, Anilkrishna B. Thota, Krista K. Proia, Shawna L. Mercer, and Randy W. Elder were with the Community Guide Branch, Division of Public Health Information Dissemination, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (CSELS), Atlanta, GA. Sara Jamieson was with the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Legislation, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta. Paula Yoon was with the Division of Health Informatics and Surveillance, CSELS. Rachel Kaufmann was with the Office of the Director, CSELS. Stephanie Zaza was with the Division of Adolescent and School Health, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative contributions and quality of practice-based evidence (PBE) and research-based evidence (RBE) in The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide). METHODS: We developed operational definitions for PBE and RBE in which the main distinguishing feature was whether allocation of participants to intervention and comparison conditions was under the control of researchers (RBE) or not (PBE). We conceptualized a continuum between RBE and PBE. We then categorized 3656 studies in 202 reviews completed since The Community Guide began in 1996. RESULTS: Fifty-four percent of studies were PBE and 46% RBE. Community-based and policy reviews had more PBE. Health care system and programmatic reviews had more RBE. The majority of both PBE and RBE studies were of high quality according to Community Guide scoring methods. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of substantial PBE in Community Guide reviews suggests that evidence of adequate rigor to inform practice is being produced. This should increase stakeholders' confidence that The Community Guide provides recommendations with real-world relevance. Limitations in some PBE studies suggest a need for strengthening practice-relevant designs and external validity reporting standards.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative contributions and quality of practice-based evidence (PBE) and research-based evidence (RBE) in The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide). METHODS: We developed operational definitions for PBE and RBE in which the main distinguishing feature was whether allocation of participants to intervention and comparison conditions was under the control of researchers (RBE) or not (PBE). We conceptualized a continuum between RBE and PBE. We then categorized 3656 studies in 202 reviews completed since The Community Guide began in 1996. RESULTS: Fifty-four percent of studies were PBE and 46% RBE. Community-based and policy reviews had more PBE. Health care system and programmatic reviews had more RBE. The majority of both PBE and RBE studies were of high quality according to Community Guide scoring methods. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of substantial PBE in Community Guide reviews suggests that evidence of adequate rigor to inform practice is being produced. This should increase stakeholders' confidence that The Community Guide provides recommendations with real-world relevance. Limitations in some PBE studies suggest a need for strengthening practice-relevant designs and external validity reporting standards.
Authors: Wiley D Jenkins; Alicia K Matthews; Angie Bailey; Whitney E Zahnd; Karriem S Watson; Georgia Mueller-Luckey; Yamile Molina; David Crumly; Julie Patera Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2018-03-24