Dataset Information

Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Systematic-review methodologies provide objectivity and transparency to the process of collecting and synthesizing scientific evidence in reaching conclusions on specific research questions. There is increasing interest in applying these procedures to address environmental health questions. OBJECTIVES: The goal was to develop a systematic-review framework to address environmental health questions by extending approaches developed for clinical medicine to handle the breadth of data relevant to environmental health sciences (e.g., human, animal, and mechanistic studies). METHODS: The Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) adapted guidance from authorities on systematic-review and sought advice during development of the OHAT Approach through consultation with technical experts in systematic review and human health assessments, as well as scientific advisory groups and the public. The method was refined by considering expert and public comments and through application to case studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Here we present a seven-step framework for systematic review and evidence integration for reaching hazard identification conclusions: 1) problem formulation and protocol development, 2) search for and select studies for inclusion, 3) extract data from studies, 4) assess the quality or risk of bias of individual studies, 5) rate the confidence in the body of evidence, 6) translate the confidence ratings into levels of evidence, and 7) integrate the information from different evidence streams (human, animal, and "other relevant data" including mechanistic or in vitro studies) to develop hazard identification conclusions. CONCLUSION: The principles of systematic review can be successfully applied to environmental health questions to provide greater objectivity and transparency to the process of developing conclusions.

SUBMITTER: Rooney AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4080517 | biostudies-other | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments.

Rooney Andrew A AA Boyles Abee L AL Wolfe Mary S MS Bucher John R JR Thayer Kristina A KA

Environmental health perspectives 20140422 7

<h4>Background</h4>Systematic-review methodologies provide objectivity and transparency to the process of collecting and synthesizing scientific evidence in reaching conclusions on specific research questions. There is increasing interest in applying these procedures to address environmental health questions.<h4>Objectives</h4>The goal was to develop a systematic-review framework to address environmental health questions by extending approaches developed for clinical medicine to handle the bread ...[more]

PMID: 24755067

Similar Datasets

Project description:Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) motivate effective measures for safeguarding public health. There is consensus that HIAs in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are lacking, but no study systematically focuses on those that have been successfully conducted across all regions of the world, nor do they highlight factors that may enable or hinder their implementation. Our objectives are to (1) systematically review, geographically map, and characterize HIA activity in LMICs; and (2) apply a process evaluation method to identify factors which are important to improve HIA implementation in LMICs. A systematic review of peer-reviewed HIAs in 156 LMICs was performed in Scopus, Medline, Web of Science, Sociological abstracts, and LILACs (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences) databases. The search used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and covered HIAs across all type of interventions, topics, and health outcomes. HIAs were included if they reported a clear intervention and health outcome to be assessed. No time restriction was applied, and grey literature was not included. The eligible studies were subjected to six process evaluation criteria. The search yielded 3178 hits and 57 studies were retained. HIAs were conducted in 26 out of 156 countries. There was an unequal distribution of HIAs across regions and within LMICs countries. The leading topics of HIA in LMICs were air pollution, development projects, and urban transport planning. Most of the HIAs reported quantitative approaches (72%), focused on air pollution (46%), appraised policies (60%), and were conducted at the city level (36%). The process evaluation showed important variations in the way HIAs have been conducted and low uniformity in the reporting of six criteria. No study reported the time, money, and staff used to perform HIAs. Only 12% of HIAs were based on participatory approaches; 92% of HIAs considered multiple outcomes; and 61% of HIAs provided recommendations and fostered cross-national collaboration. The limited transparency in process, weak participation, and inconsistent delivery of recommendations were potential limitations to HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries. Scaling and improving HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries in the upcoming years will depend on expanding geographically by increasing HIA governance, adapting models and tools in quantitative methods, and adopting better reporting practices.

Project description:BackgroundUntil now, the use of technology in health care was driven mostly by the assumptions about the benefits of electronic health (eHealth) rather than its evidence. It is noticeable that the magnitude of evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of eHealth is not proportionate to the number of interventions that are regularly conducted. Reliable evidence generated through comprehensive evaluation of eHealth interventions may accelerate the growth of eHealth for long-term successful implementation and help to experience eHealth benefits in an enhanced way.ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand how the evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of eHealth can be generated through evaluation. Hence, we aim to discern (1) how evaluation is conducted in distinct eHealth intervention phases, (2) the aspects of effectiveness and efficiency that are typically evaluated during eHealth interventions, and (3) how eHealth interventions are evaluated in practice.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to explore the evaluation methods for eHealth interventions. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. We searched Google Scholar and Scopus for the published papers that addressed the evaluation of eHealth or described an eHealth intervention study. A qualitative analysis of the selected papers was conducted in several steps.ResultsWe intended to see how the process of evaluation unfolds in distinct phases of an eHealth intervention. We revealed that in practice and in several conceptual papers, evaluation is performed at the end of the intervention. There are some studies that discuss the importance of conducting evaluation throughout the intervention; however, in practice, we found no case study that followed this. For our second research question, we discovered aspects of efficiency and effectiveness that are proposed to be assessed during interventions. The aspects that were recurrent in the conceptual papers include clinical, human and social, organizational, technological, cost, ethical and legal, and transferability. However, the case studies reviewed only evaluate the clinical and human and social aspects. At the end of the paper, we discussed a novel approach to look into the evaluation. Our intention was to stir up a discussion around this approach with the hope that it might be able to gather evidence in a comprehensive and credible way.ConclusionsThe importance of evidence in eHealth has not been discussed as rigorously as have the diverse evaluation approaches and evaluation frameworks. Further research directed toward evidence-based evaluation can not only improve the quality of intervention studies but also facilitate successful long-term implementation of eHealth in general. We conclude that the development of more robust and comprehensive evaluation of eHealth studies or an improved validation of evaluation methods could ease the transferability of results among similar studies. Thus, the resources can be used for supplementary research in eHealth.

Project description:IntroductionContemporary validity testing theory holds that validity lies in the extent to which a proposed interpretation and use of test scores is justified, the evidence for which is dependent on both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Despite this, we hypothesise that development and validation studies for assessments in the field of health primarily report a limited range of statistical properties, and that a systematic theoretical framework for validity testing is rarely applied. Using health literacy assessments as an exemplar, this paper outlines a protocol for a systematic descriptive literature review about types of validity evidence being reported and if the evidence is reported within a theoretical framework.Methods and analysisA systematic descriptive literature review of qualitative and quantitative research will be used to investigate the scope of validation practice in the rapidly growing field of health literacy assessment. This review method employs a frequency analysis to reveal potentially interpretable patterns of phenomena in a research area; in this study, patterns in types of validity evidence reported, as assessed against the criteria of the 2014 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, and in the number of studies using a theoretical validity testing framework. The search process will be consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Outcomes of the review will describe patterns in reported validity evidence, methods used to generate the evidence and theoretical frameworks underpinning validation practice and claims. This review will inform a theoretical basis for future development and validity testing of health assessments in general.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this systematic review because only published research will be examined. Dissemination of the review findings will be through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, at conference presentations and in the lead author's doctoral thesis.

Project description:To improve health outcomes in people living with HIV, adoption of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) using effective and transferable implementation strategies to optimise the delivery of healthcare is needed. ViiV Healthcare's Positive Pathways initiative was established to support the UNAIDS 90-90-90 goals. A compendium of EBIs was developed to address gaps within the HIV care continuum, yet it was unknown whether efforts existed to adapt and implement these EBIs across diverse clinical contexts. Therefore, this review sought to report on the use of implementation science in adapting HIV continuum of care EBIs. A systematic literature review was undertaken to summarise the evaluation of implementation and effectiveness outcomes, and report on the use of implementation science in HIV care. Ten databases were reviewed to identify studies (time-period: 2013-2018; geographic scope: United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Australia and Europe; English only publications). Studies were included if they reported on people living with HIV or those at risk of acquiring HIV and used interventions consistent with the EBIs. A broad range of study designs and methods were searched, including hybrid designs. Overall, 118 publications covering 225 interventions consistent with the EBIs were identified. These interventions were evaluated on implementation (N = 183), effectiveness (N = 81), or both outcomes (N = 39). High variability in the methodological approaches was observed. Implementation outcomes were frequently evaluated but use of theoretical frameworks was limited (N = 13). Evaluations undertaken to assess effectiveness were inconsistent, resulting in a range of measures. This review revealed extensive reporting on implementation science as defined using evaluation outcomes. However, high variability was observed in how implementation outcomes and effectiveness were defined, quantified, and reported. A more specific and consistent approach to conducting and reporting on implementation science in HIV could facilitate achievement of UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets.

Project description:ObjectiveValidity refers to the extent to which evidence and theory support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences based on score interpretations. The health sector is lacking a theoretically-driven framework for the development, testing and use of health assessments. This study used the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing framework of five sources of validity evidence to assess the types of evidence reported for health literacy assessments, and to identify studies that referred to a theoretical validity testing framework.MethodsA systematic descriptive literature review investigated methods and results in health literacy assessment development, application and validity testing studies. Electronic searches were conducted in EBSCOhost, Embase, Open Access Theses and Dissertations and ProQuest Dissertations. Data were coded to the Standards' five sources of validity evidence, and for reference to a validity testing framework.ResultsCoding on 46 studies resulted in 195 instances of validity evidence across the five sources. Only nine studies directly or indirectly referenced a validity testing framework. Evidence based on relations to other variables is most frequently reported.ConclusionsThe health and health equity of individuals and populations are increasingly dependent on decisions based on data collected through health assessments. An evidence-based theoretical framework provides structure and coherence to existing evidence and stipulates where further evidence is required to evaluate the extent to which data are valid for an intended purpose. This review demonstrates the use of the Standards' theoretical validity testing framework to evaluate sources of evidence reported for health literacy assessments. Findings indicate that theoretical validity testing frameworks are rarely used to collate and evaluate evidence in validation practice for health literacy assessments. Use of the Standards' theoretical validity testing framework would improve evaluation of the evidence for inferences derived from health assessment data on which public health and health equity decisions are based.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organisation framed responsiveness, fair financing and equity as intrinsic goals of health systems. However, of the three, responsiveness received significantly less attention. Responsiveness is essential to strengthen systems' functioning; provide equitable and accountable services; and to protect the rights of citizens. There is an urgency to make systems more responsive, but our understanding of responsiveness is limited. We therefore sought to map existing evidence on health system responsiveness.MethodsA mixed method systemized evidence mapping review was conducted. We searched PubMed, EbscoHost, and Google Scholar. Published and grey literature; conceptual and empirical publications; published between 2000 and 2020 and English language texts were included. We screened titles and abstracts of 1119 publications and 870 full texts.ResultsSix hundred twenty-one publications were included in the review. Evidence mapping shows substantially more publications between 2011 and 2020 (n = 462/621) than earlier periods. Most of the publications were from Europe (n = 139), with more publications relating to High Income Countries (n = 241) than Low-to-Middle Income Countries (n = 217). Most were empirical studies (n = 424/621) utilized quantitative methodologies (n = 232), while qualitative (n = 127) and mixed methods (n = 63) were more rare. Thematic analysis revealed eight primary conceptualizations of 'health system responsiveness', which can be fitted into three dominant categorizations: 1) unidirectional user-service interface; 2) responsiveness as feedback loops between users and the health system; and 3) responsiveness as accountability between public and the system.ConclusionsThis evidence map shows a substantial body of available literature on health system responsiveness, but also reveals evidential gaps requiring further development, including: a clear definition and body of theory of responsiveness; the implementation and effectiveness of feedback loops; the systems responses to this feedback; context-specific mechanism-implementation experiences, particularly, of LMIC and fragile-and conflict affected states; and responsiveness as it relates to health equity, minority and vulnerable populations. Theoretical development is required, we suggest separating ideas of services and systems responsiveness, applying a stronger systems lens in future work. Further agenda-setting and resourcing of bridging work on health system responsiveness is suggested.

Dataset Information

Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments.

Publications

Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets