Informing the development of the SUCCEED reporting guideline for studies on the scaling of health interventions: A systematic review

Abstract

Background: Quality reporting contributes to effective translation of health research in practice and policy. As an initial step in the development of a reporting guideline for scaling, the Standards for reporting stUdies of sCaling evidenCEd-informED interventions (SUCCEED), we performed a systematic review to identify relevant guidelines and compile a list of potential items. Methods: We conducted a systematic review according to Cochrane method guidelines. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, from their respective inceptions. We also searched websites of relevant organizations and Google. We included any document that provided instructions or recommendations, e.g., reporting guideline, checklist, guidance, framework, standard; could inform the design or reporting of scaling interventions; and related to the health sector. We extracted characteristics of the included guidelines and assessed their methodological quality using a 3-item internal validity assessment tool. We extracted all items from the guidelines and classified them according to the main sections of reporting guidelines (title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and other information). We performed a narrative synthesis based on descriptive statistics. Results: Of 7704 records screened (published between 1999 and 2019), we included 39 guidelines, from which data were extracted from 57 reports. Of the 39 guidelines, 17 were for designing scaling interventions and 22 for reporting implementation interventions. At least one female author was listed in 31 guidelines, and 21 first authors were female. None of the authors belonged to the patient stakeholder group. Only one guideline clearly identified a patient as having participated in the consensus process. More than half the guidelines (56%) had been developed using an evidence-based process. In total, 750 items were extracted from the 39 guidelines and distributed into the 7 main sections. Conclusion: Relevant items identified could inform the development of a reporting guideline for scaling studies of evidence-based health interventions. This and our assessment of guidelines could contribute to better reporting in the science and practice of scaling.

Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling initiatives in health and social services: A scoping review

“…Although scaling guidelines recognize the potential of PPI to enhance scaling impact, 13 , 20 , 29 to the best of our knowledge no reviews have examined PPI strategies in scaling initiatives in HSS as a whole. 15 In this review, our research question 30 was therefore ‘what strategies have been used for involving patients and the public in scaling initiatives in HSS?’ Our specific objectives were as follows: (1) review existing literature on PPI in any scaling initiative in HSS; (2) identify strategies for involving patients and the public in the science and practice of scaling in HSS, and 3) describe the characteristics of these strategies.…”

“…We define PPI in the science and practice of scaling in HSS as a partnership that scaling practitioners (e.g., researchers, policymakers, health professionals) establish with patients, citizens, communities and other civil entities to scale effective health and social interventions (whether in research, direct care, training, or policy making) and increase their impact. 5,6,[13][14][15][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Although scaling guidelines recognize the potential of PPI to enhance scaling impact, 13,20,29 to the best of our knowledge no reviews have examined PPI strategies in scaling initiatives in HSS as a whole. 15 In this review, our research question 30 was therefore 'what strategies have been used for involving patients and the public in scaling initiatives in HSS?'…”