Assessing equity in systematic reviews: realising the recommendations of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health

Tugwell, Peter; Petticrew, Mark; Kristjansson, Elizabeth; Welch, Vivian; Ueffing, Erin; Waters, Elizabeth; Bonnefoy, J; Morgan, Antony; Doohan, Emma; Kelly, Michael P.

doi:10.1136/bmj.c4739

Cited by 144 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

122

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to the still rather limited supply of high-quality evaluations, reviews are often inconclusive regarding what works, and are therefore unable to provide any policy recommendations, concluding there is a need for further research. Many of these challenges echo those highlighted by others who have been involved in applying the methodology to assess the evidence on increasingly complex 1 interventions in other fields (for example, Thomas et al 2003, Petticrew et al 2009, Tugwell et al 2010, Hagen-Zanker et al 2012.…”

Section: Why We Need To Go 'Beyond Bare Bones'mentioning

confidence: 89%

“…For instance, the importance of reporting on intervention implementation and intervention fidelity -the degree to which the intervention is delivered as planned -is frequently highlighted as an important issue in recent contributions to systematic review methodology (Armstrong and Waters 2007, Glasziou et al 2010, Tugwell et al 2010. Information about these factors can help explore issues beyond what works, including how and why something works or not, as well as help users anticipate and solve potential problems (Shadish et al 2002).…”

Section: Methodological Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An increasing number of reviews are also adopting less traditional approaches to evidence synthesis, including different types of qualitative and mixed methods synthesis (Noyes 2010). A review of this literature, as well as the experience of 3ie's systematic reviews program and approach to impact evaluation (White 2009), suggests there are two key components to adapting the traditional approach to systematic reviews and producing more useful and higher quality reviews in international development, namely the use of theory (Petticrew and Roberts 2006, Gardner et al 2010, Tugwell et al 2010, Anderson et al 2011) and the need to include a broader range of evidence (Dixon-Woods et al 2005, Mays et al 2005, Oliver et al 2005, Popay 2005, Baxter et al 2010.…”

Section: Moving Beyond 'Bare Bones'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the role of program theories (also called logic models) in systematic reviews is increasingly recognised (Armstrong and Waters 2007, Tugwell et al 2010, Anderson et al 2011.…”

Section: Using a Program Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recognising the limitations of existing methods, systematic review methodologists have developed and promoted alternative approaches to improve on or complement traditional effectiveness reviews (Thomas et al 2003, Van der Knapp et al 2008, Petticrew et al 2009, Tugwell et al 2010). An increasing number of reviews are also adopting less traditional approaches to evidence synthesis, including different types of qualitative and mixed methods synthesis (Noyes 2010).…”

Section: Moving Beyond 'Bare Bones'mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Systematic reviews: from ‘bare bones’ reviews to policy relevance

Snilstveit

2012

Journal of Development Effectiveness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews: from 'bare bones' reviews to policy relevance Birte SnilstveitTo cite this article: Birte Snilstveit (2012) Systematic reviews: from 'bare bones' reviews to policy relevance, Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4:3, 388-408, DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2012 Theory-based systematic reviews, which summarise evidence on what works, when and why, strive for greater policy relevance. Reviews that answer these questions adopt a mixed methods approach and draw on a range of study types. Answering the 'what works' and 'what doesn't' questions means drawing on effectiveness studies, conducted to standards of high-quality impact evaluation. But in formulating answers to the 'when' and 'why' questions requires a broader range of evidence from both quantitative and qualitative research. Based on a review of the methodological literature in this field and the experience of 3ie's systematic reviews program, this article provides an outline of how a theory-based approach to systematic reviews, including appropriate quantitative and qualitative evidence, can be operationalised. We propose an approach based on three principles: (1) develop a program theory for the intervention; (2) adopt a mixed methods approach and include a broader range of evidence; and (3) maintain the rigour and transparency that characterise systematic reviews. The approach translates into two broad options. Effectiveness plus reviews focus on providing a detailed causal chain analysis by drawing on a program theory and additional data collection on context and intervention implementation. And effectiveness plus with a parallel review component, which is designed to answer specific research questions related to effectiveness, adopts separate inclusion criteria, reflecting the type of studies appropriate for answering those questions.

show abstract

Section: Why We Need To Go 'Beyond Bare Bones'mentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Methodological Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Moving Beyond 'Bare Bones'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the role of program theories (also called logic models) in systematic reviews is increasingly recognised (Armstrong and Waters 2007, Tugwell et al 2010, Anderson et al 2011.…”

Section: Using a Program Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Moving Beyond 'Bare Bones'mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Systematic reviews: from ‘bare bones’ reviews to policy relevance

Snilstveit

2012

Journal of Development Effectiveness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Incorporation of Social Risk in US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations and Identification of Key Challenges for Primary Care

Davidson

Krist

Tseng

et al. 2021

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCEIn its mission to improve health, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recognizes the strong relationship between a person's health and social and economic circumstances as well as persistent inequities in health care delivery.OBJECTIVE To assess how social risks have been considered in USPSTF recommendation statements and identify current gaps in evidence needed to expand the systematic inclusion of social risks in future recommendations.EVIDENCE The USPSTF commissioned a technical brief that reviewed existing literature on screening and interventions for social risk factors and also audited the 85 USPSTF recommendation statements active as of December 2019 to determine how social risks were addressed in clinical preventive services recommendations.FINDINGS Among the 85 USPSTF recommendation statements reviewed, 14 were focused on preventive services that considered health-related social risks. Social risks were commonly referenced in parts of USPSTF recommendations, with 57 of 85 recommendations including some comment on social risks within the recommendation statement, although many comments were not separate prevention services. Social risks were commented on in USPSTF recommendations as part of risk assessment, as a marker of worse health outcomes from the condition of focus, as a consideration for clinicians when implementing the preventive service, and as a research need or gap on the topic.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This report identified how social risks have been considered in the USPSTF recommendation statements. It serves as a benchmark and foundation for ongoing work to advance the goal of ensuring that health equity and social risks are incorporated in USPSTF methods and recommendations.

show abstract

Interventions for preventing obesity in children

Waters

Sanigorski

Hall

et al. 2011

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

1,122

998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Obesity prevention is an international public health priority. The prevalence of obesity and overweight is increasing in child populations throughout the world, impacting on short and long-term health. Obesity prevention strategies for children can change behaviour but efficacy in terms of preventing obesity remains poorly understood. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent obesity in childhood through diet, physical activity and/or lifestyle and social support. Search strategy MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched from 1990 to February 2005. Non-English language papers were included and experts contacted. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials with minimum duration twelve weeks. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Main results Twenty-two studies were included; ten long-term (at least 12 months) and twelve short-term (12 weeks to 12 months). Nineteen were school/preschool-based interventions, one was a community-based intervention targeting low-income families, and two were familybased interventions targeting non-obese children of obese or overweight parents. Six of the ten long-term studies combined dietary education and physical activity interventions; five resulted in no difference in overweight status between groups and one resulted in improvements for girls receiving the intervention, but not boys. Two studies Interventions for preventing obesity in children (Review)

show abstract

Assessing equity in systematic reviews: realising the recommendations of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health

Cited by 144 publications

References 27 publications

Systematic reviews: from ‘bare bones’ reviews to policy relevance

Systematic reviews: from ‘bare bones’ reviews to policy relevance

Incorporation of Social Risk in US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations and Identification of Key Challenges for Primary Care

Interventions for preventing obesity in children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About