Interventions to reduce ambient particulate matter air pollution and their effect on health

Burns, Jacob; Boogaard, Hanna; Polus, Stephanie; Pfadenhauer, Lisa M.; Rohwer, Anke; Erp, Annemoon M. van; Turley, Ruth; Rehfuess, Eva

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010919.pub2

Cited by 52 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 315 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Table contains step‐by‐step guidance on how to implement an a priori logic modelling approach. Box S1 (Online Supplement) provides a worked example as part of an ongoing Cochrane review to assess the impacts of interventions to reduce ambient particulate matter air pollution on pollutant concentrations and health …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whether an initial logic model is identified from the literature or developed de novo, several methods can and should be combined to populate the model: Conceptualisation and brainstorming within the review team is important in scoping the systematic review or HTA; the logic model offers a “way of mapping the outcome of discussions” within the review team. Consultation with content experts, where these are not sufficiently represented on the review team, can ensure that the conceptualisation of the systematic review or HTA, and its representation through the logic model is congruent with current tacit knowledge. Literature searches can serve to unearth data of relevance to the research question as well as to examine specific components or linkages within the logic model; these searches tend to be nonsystematic. Stakeholder engagement is an important means of making the logic model and thus the systematic review or HTA as a whole policy‐relevant. 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 or Review Advisory Groups …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…System-based logic models describe the system, in which the interaction between participants, intervention, and context takes place; process-orientated logic models display the causal pathways that lead from the intervention to multiple outcomes. 15 We applied these logic model templates in a demonstration HTA on home-based palliative care within the INTEGRATE-HTA project, 21 as well as 3 systematic reviews undertaken outside of the INTEGRATE-HTA project, ie, an ongoing Cochrane review of interventions to reduce particulate matter air pollution, 22 a Campbell review of e-learning to increase evidence-based health care competencies in health care professionals, 23 and a review of interventions to reduce exposure to lead through consumer products and drinking water within a guideline developed by the World Health Organization. 24 While a priori logic modelling was considered to be appropriate in the systematic reviews, the application in the demonstration HTA on home-based palliative care soon revealed that the logic model we had developed would not remain fixed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

show abstract

“…Thus, we consulted experts with the aim of supplementing the summary of evidence generated through the systematic review with more detailed information regarding the assessed populations, interventions and outcomes, and potentially, the effects (or lack thereof) of included studies. The inclusion of expert input in systematic reviews of effectiveness has been shown to add value, both at the planning stage to define the scope of the review and at the evidence synthesis stage, for example, through Bayesian meta‐analysis . Our application of gap analysis and expert consultations as a supplement to the more traditional evidence synthesis likewise aimed to go beyond the conduct and reporting of any individual study, to enrich the results of the review with the knowledge and experience of experts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We recognized that while harvest plots are a good means of providing an overview of the evidence of effectiveness, decision makers tend to be interested in more detailed and concrete information regarding the various populations, interventions, and outcomes. 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 . 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.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesis and Beyond: Harvest Plots Gap‐analysis mentioning

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