Literature DB >> 33535975

A review of the quantitative effectiveness evidence synthesis methods used in public health intervention guidelines.

Ellesha A Smith1, Nicola J Cooper2, Alex J Sutton2, Keith R Abrams2, Stephanie J Hubbard2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The complexity of public health interventions create challenges in evaluating their effectiveness. There have been huge advancements in quantitative evidence synthesis methods development (including meta-analysis) for dealing with heterogeneity of intervention effects, inappropriate 'lumping' of interventions, adjusting for different populations and outcomes and the inclusion of various study types. Growing awareness of the importance of using all available evidence has led to the publication of guidance documents for implementing methods to improve decision making by answering policy relevant questions.
METHODS: The first part of this paper reviews the methods used to synthesise quantitative effectiveness evidence in public health guidelines by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) that had been published or updated since the previous review in 2012 until the 19th August 2019.The second part of this paper provides an update of the statistical methods and explains how they address issues related to evaluating effectiveness evidence of public health interventions.
RESULTS: The proportion of NICE public health guidelines that used a meta-analysis as part of the synthesis of effectiveness evidence has increased since the previous review in 2012 from 23% (9 out of 39) to 31% (14 out of 45). The proportion of NICE guidelines that synthesised the evidence using only a narrative review decreased from 74% (29 out of 39) to 60% (27 out of 45).An application in the prevention of accidents in children at home illustrated how the choice of synthesis methods can enable more informed decision making by defining and estimating the effectiveness of more distinct interventions, including combinations of intervention components, and identifying subgroups in which interventions are most effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite methodology development and the publication of guidance documents to address issues in public health intervention evaluation since the original review, NICE public health guidelines are not making full use of meta-analysis and other tools that would provide decision makers with fuller information with which to develop policy. There is an evident need to facilitate the translation of the synthesis methods into a public health context and encourage the use of methods to improve decision making.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complex interventions; Decision making; Evidence synthesis; Meta-analysis; Network meta-analysis; Public health; Systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33535975      PMCID: PMC7860217          DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-10162-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Public Health        ISSN: 1471-2458            Impact factor:   3.295


  45 in total

1.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of complex interventions: psychological interventions in coronary heart disease.

Authors:  Nicky J Welton; D M Caldwell; E Adamopoulos; K Vedhara
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Network meta-analysis: development of a three-level hierarchical modeling approach incorporating dose-related constraints.

Authors:  Rhiannon K Owen; Douglas G Tincello; R Abrams Keith
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance.

Authors:  Peter Craig; Paul Dieppe; Sally Macintyre; Susan Michie; Irwin Nazareth; Mark Petticrew
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 5.837

Review 5.  Component network meta-analysis identifies the most effective components of psychological preparation for adults undergoing surgery under general anesthesia.

Authors:  Suzanne C Freeman; Neil W Scott; Rachael Powell; Marie Johnston; Alex J Sutton; Nicola J Cooper
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 6.  An exploration of synthesis methods in public health evaluations of interventions concludes that the use of modern statistical methods would be beneficial.

Authors:  Felix Achana; Stephanie Hubbard; Alex Sutton; Denise Kendrick; Nicola Cooper
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-12-31       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Multivariate meta-analysis for non-linear and other multi-parameter associations.

Authors:  A Gasparrini; B Armstrong; M G Kenward
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-07-16       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Network meta-analysis of multiple outcome measures accounting for borrowing of information across outcomes.

Authors:  Felix A Achana; Nicola J Cooper; Sylwia Bujkiewicz; Stephanie J Hubbard; Denise Kendrick; David R Jones; Alex J Sutton
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-07-21       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Bayesian one-step IPD network meta-analysis of time-to-event data using Royston-Parmar models.

Authors:  Suzanne C Freeman; James R Carpenter
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 5.273

10.  MetaInsight: An interactive web-based tool for analyzing, interrogating, and visualizing network meta-analyses using R-shiny and netmeta.

Authors:  Rhiannon K Owen; Naomi Bradbury; Yiqiao Xin; Nicola Cooper; Alex Sutton
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2019-10-11       Impact factor: 5.273

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Plants make smart decisions in complex environments.

Authors:  Liv S Severino
Journal:  Plant Signal Behav       Date:  2021-08-29

2.  Using threshold analysis to assess the robustness of public health intervention recommendations from network meta-analyses: application to accident prevention in households with children under five.

Authors:  Molly Wells; Sylwia Bujkiewicz; Stephanie J Hubbard
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 4.135

3.  Individual-, family- and school-based interventions to prevent multiple risk behaviours relating to alcohol, tobacco and drug use in young people aged 8-25 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Laura Tinner; Jennifer C Palmer; E Caitlin Lloyd; Deborah M Caldwell; Georgie J MacArthur; Kaiseree Dias; Rebecca Langford; James Redmore; Linda Wittkop; Sarah Holmes Watkins; Matthew Hickman; Rona Campbell
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-06-03       Impact factor: 4.135

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.