Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability.


ABSTRACT:

Background

Systematic reviews of research evidence have become an expected basis for decisions about practice guidelines and policy decisions in the health and welfare sectors. Review authors define inclusion criteria to help them determine which studies to search for and include in their reviews. However, these studies may still vary in the extent to which they reflect the context of interest in the review question. While most review authors would agree that systematic reviews should be relevant and useful for decision makers, there appears to be few well known, if any, established methods for supporting review authors to assess the transferability of review findings to the context of interest in the review. With this systematic mapping and content analysis, we aim to identify whether there exists checklists to support review authors in considering transferability early in the systematic review process. The secondary aim was to develop a comprehensive list of factors that influence transferability as discussed in existing checklists.

Methods

We conducted a systematic mapping of checklists and performed a content analysis of the checklist criteria included in the identified checklists. In June 2016, we conducted a systematic search of eight databases to identify checklists to assess transferability of findings from primary or secondary research, without limitations related to publication type, status, language, or date. We also conducted a gray literature search and searched the EQUATOR repository of checklists for any relevant document. We used search terms such as modified versions of the terms "transferability," "applicability," "generalizability," etc. and "checklist," "guideline," "tool," "criteria," etc. We did not include papers that discussed transferability at a theoretical level or checklists to assess the transferability of guidelines to local contexts.

Results

Our search resulted in 11,752 titles which were screened independently by two review authors. The 101 articles which were considered potentially relevant were subsequently read by two authors, independently in full text and assessed for inclusion. We identified 31 relevant checklists. Six of these examined transferability of economic evaluations, and 25 examined transferability of primary or secondary research findings in health (n?=?23) or social welfare (n?=?2). The content analysis is based on the 25 health and social welfare checklists. We identified seven themes under which we grouped categories of checklist criteria: population, intervention, implementation context (immediate), comparison intervention, outcomes, environmental context, and researcher conduct.

Conclusions

We identified a variety of checklists intended to support end users (researchers, review authors, practitioners, etc.) to assess transferability or related concepts. While four of these checklists are intended for use in systematic reviews of effectiveness, we found no checklists for qualitative evidence syntheses or for the field of social welfare practice or policy. Furthermore, none of the identified checklists for review authors included guidance to on how to assess transferability, or present assessments in a systematic review. The results of the content analysis can serve as the basis for developing a comprehensive list of factors to be used in an approach to support review authors in systematically and transparently considering transferability from the beginning of the review process.

SUBMITTER: Munthe-Kaas H 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6330740 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability.

Munthe-Kaas Heather H   Nøkleby Heid H   Nguyen Lien L  

Systematic reviews 20190114 1


<h4>Background</h4>Systematic reviews of research evidence have become an expected basis for decisions about practice guidelines and policy decisions in the health and welfare sectors. Review authors define inclusion criteria to help them determine which studies to search for and include in their reviews. However, these studies may still vary in the extent to which they reflect the context of interest in the review question. While most review authors would agree that systematic reviews should be  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC8858549 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC3963558 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC3706771 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7341642 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9294572 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7203891 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9436887 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6140329 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC3573912 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8569407 | biostudies-literature