Chris Cooper1, Rebecca Lovell2, Kerryn Husk3, Andrew Booth4, Ruth Garside2. 1. PenTAG, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK. 2. European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Truro Campus, Truro, TR1 3HD, UK. 3. NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, N10, ITTC Building, Plymouth Science Park, Plymouth, PL6 8BX, UK. 4. HEDS, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the health benefits of environmental enhancement and conservation activities. We were concerned that a conventional process of study identification, focusing on exhaustive searches of bibliographic databases as the primary search method, would be ineffective, offering limited value. The focus of this study is comparing study identification methods. We compare (1) an approach led by searches of bibliographic databases with (2) an approach led by supplementary search methods. We retrospectively assessed the effectiveness and value of both approaches. METHODS: Effectiveness was determined by comparing (1) the total number of studies identified and screened and (2) the number of includable studies uniquely identified by each approach. Value was determined by comparing included study quality and by using qualitative sensitivity analysis to explore the contribution of studies to the synthesis. RESULTS: The bibliographic databases approach identified 21 409 studies to screen and 2 included qualitative studies were uniquely identified. Study quality was moderate, and contribution to the synthesis was minimal. The supplementary search approach identified 453 studies to screen and 9 included studies were uniquely identified. Four quantitative studies were poor quality but made a substantive contribution to the synthesis; 5 studies were qualitative: 3 studies were good quality, one was moderate quality, and 1 study was excluded from the synthesis due to poor quality. All 4 included qualitative studies made significant contributions to the synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: This case study found value in aligning primary methods of study identification to maximise location of relevant evidence.
BACKGROUND: We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the health benefits of environmental enhancement and conservation activities. We were concerned that a conventional process of study identification, focusing on exhaustive searches of bibliographic databases as the primary search method, would be ineffective, offering limited value. The focus of this study is comparing study identification methods. We compare (1) an approach led by searches of bibliographic databases with (2) an approach led by supplementary search methods. We retrospectively assessed the effectiveness and value of both approaches. METHODS: Effectiveness was determined by comparing (1) the total number of studies identified and screened and (2) the number of includable studies uniquely identified by each approach. Value was determined by comparing included study quality and by using qualitative sensitivity analysis to explore the contribution of studies to the synthesis. RESULTS: The bibliographic databases approach identified 21 409 studies to screen and 2 included qualitative studies were uniquely identified. Study quality was moderate, and contribution to the synthesis was minimal. The supplementary search approach identified 453 studies to screen and 9 included studies were uniquely identified. Four quantitative studies were poor quality but made a substantive contribution to the synthesis; 5 studies were qualitative: 3 studies were good quality, one was moderate quality, and 1 study was excluded from the synthesis due to poor quality. All 4 included qualitative studies made significant contributions to the synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: This case study found value in aligning primary methods of study identification to maximise location of relevant evidence.
Authors: Laura-Louise Arundell; Helen Greenwood; Helen Baldwin; Eleanor Kotas; Shubulade Smith; Kasia Trojanowska; Chris Cooper Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2020-05-26
Authors: Sara Landerdahl Stridsberg; Matt X Richardson; Ken Redekop; Maria Ehn; Sarah Wamala Andersson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Nick Firth; Michael Barkham; Jaime Delgadillo; Kai Allery; Jonathan Woodward; Alicia O'Cathain Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2021-11-27
Authors: Chris Cooper; Andrew Booth; Jo Varley-Campbell; Nicky Britten; Ruth Garside Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Kerryn Husk; Kelly Blockley; Rebecca Lovell; Alison Bethel; Iain Lang; Richard Byng; Ruth Garside Journal: Health Soc Care Community Date: 2019-09-09