Environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effects on health

Philipsborn, Peter von; Stratil, Jan M.; Burns, Jacob; Busert, Laura K; Pfadenhauer, Lisa M.; Holzapfel, Christina; Hauner, Hans; Rehfuess, Eva

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012292

Cited by 75 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 146 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Systematic review authors increasingly engage content experts, both at the planning and execution stage, in the hopes to increase the relevance and utility of review results. 4,[25][26][27] Thus, in an attempt to engage with experts in palliative care practice, we subsequently conducted a gap analysis and expert consultations to further explore the review results. "Gap analysis" is a catchall term used to describe a range of methods applied in many scenarios.…”

Section: Scope and Overview Of Methods Of Systematic Review Of Rhbpcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking beyond the forest: Using harvest plots, gap analysis, and expert consultations to assess effectiveness, engage stakeholders, and inform policy

Burns¹,

Brereton

Chilcott

et al. 2017

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe a combination of methods for assessing the effectiveness of complex interventions, especially where substantial heterogeneity with regard to the population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design of interest is expected. We applied these methods in a recent systematic review of the effectiveness of reinforced home-based palliative care (rHBPC) interventions, which included home-based care with an additional and explicit component of lay caregiver support. We first summarized the identified evidence, deemed inappropriate for statistical pooling, graphically by creating harvest plots. Although very useful as a tool for summary and presentation of overall effectiveness, such graphical summary approaches may obscure relevant differences between studies. Thus, we then used a gap analysis and conducted expert consultations to look beyond the aggregate level at how the identified evidence of effectiveness may be explained. The goal of these supplemental methods was to step outside of the conventional systematic review and explore this heterogeneity from a broader perspective, based on the experience of palliative care researchers and practitioners. The gap analysis and expert consultations provided valuable input into possible underlying explanations in the evidence, which could be helpful in the further adaptation and testing of existing rHBPC interventions or the development and evaluation of new ones. We feel that such a combination of methods could prove accessible, understandable, and useful in informing decisions and could thus help increase the relevance of systematic reviews to the decision-making process.

show abstract

Section: Scope and Overview Of Methods Of Systematic Review Of Rhbpcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking beyond the forest: Using harvest plots, gap analysis, and expert consultations to assess effectiveness, engage stakeholders, and inform policy

Burns¹,

Brereton

Chilcott

et al. 2017

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Am Beispiel von zuckergesüßten Getränken haben von Philipsborn et al kürzlich gezeigt, dass verschiedene verhältnispräventive Maßnahmen (▶ Tab. 2) dazu führen, dass der Konsum von zu- ckerhaltigen Getränken reduziert wird [10]. Darunter finden sich ebenfalls die Lebensmittelkennzeichnung, die Steuern sowie Nudging-Maßnahmen.…”

Section: Folgenunclassified

Lebensmittelkennzeichnung als Maßnahme zur Prävention von Übergewicht und Adipositas

Holzapfel

2019

Adipositas - Ursachen, Folgeerkrankungen, Therapie

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungDie hohe Prävalenz von Übergewicht und Adipositas in Deutschland zeigt einen deutlichen Handlungsbedarf auf verschiedenen Ebenen. Neben der Verbesserung der Therapieoptionen stehen präventive Maßnahmen im Mittelpunkt. Letztere stellen eine gesamtgesellschaftliche Aufgabe dar, die von Wissenschaft und Medizin gemeinsam mit Politik und Akteuren des Gesundheitswesens, der Wirtschaft, den Medien sowie den Betroffenen erarbeitet und vertreten werden muss. Es ist nötig, die gesellschaftlichen Rahmenbedingungen so zu gestalten, dass allen Menschen ein gesundheitsförderlicher Lebensstil erleichtert wird. Verschiedene präventive Strategien werden diskutiert, wobei es an einer konsequenten flächendeckenden Umsetzung fehlt. Unter anderem steht eine verbesserte und einheitliche Lebensmittelkennzeichnung zur Diskussion, um mehr Transparenz für die Verbraucher zu schaffen und eine bewusstere und gesündere Entscheidung beim Lebensmittelkauf zu erleichtern. Obwohl es gute Hinweise für die Wirksamkeit einer transparenten Lebensmittelkennzeichnung auf das Gesundheitsverhalten der Verbraucher gibt, geht die politische Entscheidung für eine entsprechende Kennzeichnung nur schleppend voran.

show abstract

“…Stakeholder engagement should ensure that different perspectives (eg, policymakers, funders, implementers, patients, or other targeted population groups) are represented and can take place through informal consultations or through more formal consultations, eg, with Stakeholder Advisory Panels 21 or Review Advisory Groups. 22,33 Depending on the logic modelling approach chosen, these processes may all take place at the very beginning of logic model development or be interspersed throughout the systematic review or HTA process. Irrespective of the chosen logic modelling approach, a review team should be explicit about whether they used or adapted an existing logic model or created a new logic model, and they should carefully report the various data sources used.…”

Section: Populating the Logic Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A priori, staged, and iterative approaches

Rehfuess¹,

Booth

Brereton

et al. 2017

Research Synthesis Methods

Self Cite

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article:Rehfuess, E.A. orcid.org/0000-0002-4318-8846, Booth, A., Brereton, L. et al. (8 more authors) (2017) Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: a priori, staged and iterative approaches. Research Synthesis Methods. ISSN 1759ISSN -2879 https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1254 eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1254 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews Short title:A taxonomy of logic models: a priori, staged and iterative approaches This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. AbstractThe complexity associated with how interventions result -or fail to result -in outcomes, and how context matters is increasingly recognised. Logic models provide an important tool for handling complexity, with contrasting uses in programme evaluation and evidence synthesis. To reconcile these, we developed an approach that combines the strengths of both traditions, propose a taxonomy of logic models, and provide guidance on how to choose between approaches and types of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTA).The taxonomy distinguishes three approaches (a priori, staged, iterative) and two types (systems-based, process-orientated) of logic models. An a priori logic model is specified at the start of the systematic review/HTA and remains unchanged. With a staged logic model, the reviewer pre-specifies several points, at which major data inputs require a subsequent version. An iterative logic model is continuously modified throughout the systematic review/HTA process. System-based logic models describe the system, in which the interaction between participants, intervention and context takes place; process-orientated models display the causal pathways leading from the intervention to multiple outcomes.The proposed taxonomy of logic models offers an improved understanding of the advantages and limitations of logic models across the spectrum from a priori to fully iterative approaches. Choice ...

show abstract

Environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effects on health

Cited by 75 publications

References 146 publications

Looking beyond the forest: Using harvest plots, gap analysis, and expert consultations to assess effectiveness, engage stakeholders, and inform policy

Looking beyond the forest: Using harvest plots, gap analysis, and expert consultations to assess effectiveness, engage stakeholders, and inform policy

Lebensmittelkennzeichnung als Maßnahme zur Prävention von Übergewicht und Adipositas

Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A priori, staged, and iterative approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About