Train the Trainer Course book - Cochrane Public Health Group

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table One. Comparing different types of reviews Review Characteristics Uses Limitations Traditional literature review / narrative review Describes and appraises previous work but does not describe specific methods by which the reviewed studies were identified, selected and evaluated Overviews, discussions, critiques of previous work and the current gaps in knowledge Often used as rationale for new research To scope the types of interventions available to include in a review The writers assumptions and agenda often unknown Biases that occur in selecting and assessing the literature are unknown Cannot be replicated Systematic review The scope of the review is identified in advance (eg review question and subquestions and/or sub-group analyses to be undertaken) Comprehensive search to find all relevant studies Use of explicit criteria to include / exclude studies Application of established standards to critically appraise study quality Explicit methods of extracting and synthesising study findings Identifies, appraises and synthesises all available research that is relevant to a particular review question Collates all that is known on a given topic and identifies the basis of that knowledge Comprehensive report using explicit processes so that rationale, assumptions and methods are open to scrutiny by external parties Systematic reviews with narrowly defined review questions provide specific answers to specific questions Alternative questions that have not been answered usually need to be reconstructed by the reader Can be replicated / updated Advantages of systematic reviews Reduces bias Replicable Resolves controversy between conflicting findings Provides reliable basis for decision making 12
Reviews of clinical interventions vs. reviews of public health interventions Some of the key challenges presented by the health promotion and public health field are a focus or emphasis on; populations and communities rather than individuals; combinations of strategies rather than single interventions; processes as well as outcomes; involvement of community members in program design and evaluation; health promotion theories and beliefs; the use of qualitative as well as quantitative approaches to research and evaluation; the complexity and long-term nature of health promotion intervention outcomes. 5 REFERENCES 1. Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness. CRD’s Guidance for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. CRD Report Number 4 (2 nd Edition). NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. March 2001. 2. Klassen TP, Jadad AR, Moher D. Guides for Reading and Interpreting Systematic Reviews. 1. Getting Started. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998;152:700-704 3. Hedin A, and Kallestal C. Knowledge-based public health work. Part 2: Handbook for compilation of reviews on interventions in the field of public health. National Institute of Public Health. 2004. http://www.fhi.se/shop/material_pdf/r200410Knowledgebased2.pdf 4. Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof 2002;25:12-37. 5. Jackson SF, Edwards RK, Kahan B, Goodstadt M. An Assessment of the Methods and Concepts Used to Synthesize the Evidence of Effectiveness in Health Promotion: A Review of 17 Initiatives. http://www.utoronto.ca/chp/chp/consort/synthesisfinalreport.pdf ADDITIONAL READING Mulrow CD. Systematic reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:597-599. McQueen D. The evidence debate. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:83-84. Petticrew M. Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions. BMJ 2003;326:756-8. Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ 2001;322:98-101. Grimshaw JM, Freemantle N, Langhorne P, Song F. Complexity and systematic reviews: report to the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment , 1995. Rychetnik L, Hawe P, Waters E, Barratt A, Frommer M. A glossary for evidence based public health. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:538-45. 13
Page 1 and 2: TRAIN-THE-TRAINER HANDBOOOK Two-day
Page 3: Contents Introduction .............
Page 6 and 7: Additional reading: Textbooks: Oliv
Page 8 and 9: 2) ONCE REGISTRATIONS HAVE BEEN REC
Page 11: OUTLINE OF TWO-DAY WORKSHOP 9:00am
Page 15: Unit One: Background to Systematic
Page 19 and 20: FACILITATOR’S GUIDE Time required
Page 21 and 22: Unit Two: International Systematic
Page 25 and 26: Unit Three: Resources Required Lear
Page 27: Formulate review question Establish
Page 31 and 32: Unit Four: Developing a Protocol Le
Page 33 and 34: Establish an Advisory Group whose m
Page 37 and 38: Unit Five: Asking an Answerable Que
Page 39 and 40: To investigate both the implementat
Page 41 and 42: Process evaluations: these studies
Page 43 and 44: REFERENCES 1. Oliver S. 1997. Explo
Page 45 and 46: FACILATOR’S GUIDE Time required:
Page 47 and 48: Unit Six: Finding The Evidence Lear
Page 49 and 50: CA38392 (NCI) Language English Entr
Page 51 and 52: Where to locate studies a) Electron
Page 53 and 54: ADDITIONAL READING Harden A, Peersm
Page 55 and 56: 45. "Diet-Fat-Restricted"/ all subh
Page 57 and 58: Brunton G, Harden A, Rees R, Kavana
Page 59 and 60: 1. Start with the primary concept,
Page 61 and 62: 5. Because adolescent has no narrow
Page 63: 12. Complete searches 8-12 and 13-2
Page 67 and 68:
Unit Seven: Data Abstraction Learni
Page 69:
FACILITATOR’S GUIDE Time required
Page 72 and 73:
Introduction of bias into the condu
Page 74 and 75:
population on gender, age, or educa
Page 76 and 77:
5) Data collection methods As highl
Page 78 and 79:
These data provide important inform
Page 80 and 81:
11. Green J, Tones K. Towards a sec
Page 83 and 84:
QUALITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR QUANTIT
Page 85 and 86:
G) ANALYSIS (Q1) Is there a sample
Page 87 and 88:
DICTIONARY for the Effective Public
Page 89 and 90:
(i) (ii) If the study was reported
Page 91 and 92:
F) WITHDRAWALS AND DROP-OUTS Q1 Ind
Page 93:
C) CONFOUNDERS Strong Moderate Weak
Page 96 and 97:
Emphasise that the criteria to appr
Page 98 and 99:
Randomised controlled trial - criti
Page 100 and 101:
calculation? Yes Partially No (Q2)
Page 102 and 103:
Controlled before and after study -
Page 104 and 105:
RATE THIS SECTION Strong Moderate W
Page 106 and 107:
102
Page 108 and 109:
Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative Researc
Page 110 and 111:
Screening Questions 1 Was there a c
Page 112 and 113:
……………………………
Page 114 and 115:
110
Page 116 and 117:
A Checklist for Evaluating Evidence
Page 118 and 119:
114
Page 120 and 121:
Where studies are more homogenous,
Page 122 and 123:
118
Page 124 and 125:
120
Page 126 and 127:
esulting from some community interv
Page 128 and 129:
Reviewers should use the RE-AIM mod
Page 130 and 131:
Economic efficiency Harms Economic
Page 132 and 133:
9. Swerrissen H, Crisp BR. The sust
Page 134 and 135:
Exercise: Allow participants 20 min
Page 136 and 137:
who had participated in their smoki
Page 138 and 139:
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme
Page 140 and 141:
……………………………
Page 142 and 143:
2 points out of the possible 4 poin
Page 144 and 145:
- search for non-English language s
Page 146:
9. Were all important outcomes cons
show all

Train the Trainer Course book - Cochrane Public Health Group

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?