A Process for Systematically Reviewing the Literature: Providing the Research Evidence for Public Health Nursing Interventions

B.H. Thomas RN, MSc

B.H. Thomas, Associate Professor, McMaster University School of Nursing, and clinical consultant, Hamilton Public Health and Community Services, PHRED Program . D. Ciliska, Professor, McMaster University School of Nursing, and clinical consultant, Hamilton Public Health and Community Services, PHRED Program . M. Dobbins, Associate Professor, McMaster University School of Nursing . S. Micucci, Project Coordinator, Effective Public Health Practice Project .

Search for more papers by this author

D. Ciliska RN, PhD,

D. Ciliska RN, PhD

Search for more papers by this author

M. Dobbins RN, PhD,

M. Dobbins RN, PhD

Search for more papers by this author

S. Micucci BA, MSc,

S. Micucci BA, MSc

Search for more papers by this author

B.H. Thomas RN, MSc,

B.H. Thomas RN, MSc

Search for more papers by this author

D. Ciliska RN, PhD,

D. Ciliska RN, PhD

Search for more papers by this author

M. Dobbins RN, PhD,

M. Dobbins RN, PhD

Search for more papers by this author

S. Micucci BA, MSc,

S. Micucci BA, MSc

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 23 June 2004

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2004.04006.x

Citations: 1,482

Address correspondence to Helen Thomas, School of Nursing, Room 3N28C, McMaster University, 1200 Main St. W., Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada; [email protected]

This article is adapted from a paper presented at the Sigma Theta Tau 14th International Nursing Research Congress, July 2003, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.

Share a link

Email
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
Wechat

ABSTRACT

Background: Several groups have outlined methodologies for systematic literature reviews of the effectiveness of interventions. The Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) began in 1998. Its mandate is to provide research evidence to guide and support the Ontario Ministry of Health in outlining minimum requirements for public health services in the province. Also, the project is expected to disseminate the results provincially, nationally, and internationally. Most of the reviews are relevant to public health nursing practice.

Aims: This article describes four issues related to the systematic literature reviews of the effectiveness of public health nursing interventions: (1) the process of systematically reviewing the literature, (2) the development of a quality assessment instrument, (3) the results of the EPHPP to date, and (4) some results of the dissemination strategies used.

Methods: The eight steps of the systematic review process including question formulation, searching and retrieving the literature, establishing relevance criteria, assessing studies for relevance, assessing relevant studies for methodological quality, data extraction and synthesis, writing the report, and dissemination are outlined. Also, the development and assessment of content and construct validity and intrarater reliability of the quality assessment questionnaire used in the process are described.

Results: More than 20 systematic reviews have been completed. Content validity was ascertained by the use of a number of experts to review the questionnaire during its development. Construct validity was demonstrated through comparisons with another highly rated instrument. Intrarater reliability was established using Cohen's Kappa. Dissemination strategies used appear to be effective in that professionals report being aware of the reviews and using them in program planning/policymaking decisions.

Conclusions: The EPHPP has demonstrated the ability to adapt the most current methods of systematic literature reviews of effectiveness to questions related to public health nursing. Other positive outcomes from the process include the development of a critical mass of public health researchers and practitioners who can actively participate in the process, and the work on dissemination has been successful in attracting external funds. A program of research in this area is being developed.

References

Black M., Yamada J., Mann V., Cava M. & Micucci S. (2000). Effectiveness of strategies to increase cervical cancer screening: A systematic review of the literature 1989–1999. Ontario , Canada : Public Health Research, Education and Development Program (PHRED) .
Google Scholar
Briss P.A., Zaza S., Pappaioanou M., Fielding J., Wright-De Aguero L., Truman B.I., et al.. (2000). Developing an evidence-based Guide to Community Preventive Services—Methods. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18(1 Suppl), 35–43.
10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00119-1
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
M. Clarke & A.D. Oxman (Eds.). (2003). Cochrane reviewers' handbook. The Cochrane Library (Issue 2). Oxford , UK : Update Software.
Google Scholar
Davies P. & Boruch R. (2001). The Campbell Collaboration. Does for public policy what Cochrane does for health. British Medical Journal, 323(7308), 294–295.
10.1136/bmj.323.7308.294
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Deeks J.J., Dinnes J., D'Amico R., Sowden A.J., Sakarovitch C., Song F., Petticrew, M. & Altman, D.G. (2003). Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment, 7(27), 1–173.
Google Scholar
Dobbins M., Cockerill R. & Barnsley J. (2001a). Factors affecting the utilization of systematic reviews. A study of public health decision makers. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 17(2), 203–214.
10.1017/S0266462300105069
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Dobbins M., Cockerill R., Barnsley J. & Ciliska D. (2001b). Factors of the innovation, organization, environment, and individual that predict the influence five systematic reviews had on public health decisions. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 17(4), 467–478.
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Egger M., Davey Smith G. & Schneider M. (2001). Systematic reviews of observational studies. In M. Egger, G. Davey Smith & D.G. Altman (Eds.), Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context, 2nd ed. (pp. 211–227). London : BMJ Books.
10.1002/9780470693926.ch12
Google Scholar
Grimshaw J.M., Shirran L., Thomas R., Mowatt G., Fraser C., Bero L., et al.. (2001). Changing provider behavior: An overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Medical Care, 39(8 Suppl 2), II2–45.
10.1097/00005650-200108002-00002
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Guyatt G.H., DiCenso A., Farewell V., Willan A. & Griffith L. (2000). Randomized trials versus observational studies in adolescent pregnancy prevention. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(2), 167–174.
10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00160-2
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Hopkins D.P., Briss P.A., Ricard C.J., Husten C.G., Carande-Kulis V.G., Fielding J.E., et al.. (2001). Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(2 Suppl), 16–66.
10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00297-X
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Jadad A.R., Moore R.A., Carroll D., Jenkinson C., Reynolds D.J., Gavaghan D.J., et al. (1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary Controlled Clinical Trials, 17(1), 1–12.
10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Khan K.S., Ter Riet G., Glanville J., Sowden A.J. & Kleijnen J. (2001). Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. York , UK : NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York .
Google Scholar
Kunz R. & Oxman A.D. (1998). The unpredictability paradox: Review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 317(7167), 1185–1190.
10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1185
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
MacLehose R.R., Reeves B.C., Harvey I.M., Sheldon T.A., Russell I.T. & Black A.M.S. (2000). A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Health Technology Assessment, 4(34), 1–154.
10.3310/hta4340
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
McKee M., Britton A., Black N., McPherson K., Sanderson C. & Bain C. (1999). Methods in health services research. Interpreting the evidence: Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies. British Medical Journal, 319(7205), 312–315.
10.1136/bmj.319.7205.312
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Moher D., Pham B., Jones A., Cook D.J., Jadad A.R., Moher M., et al.. (1998). Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses Lancet, 352(9128), 609–613.
10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01085-X
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Mulrow C.D. & Oxman A.D. (1994). The Cochrane collaboration handbook. Oxford , UK .
Google Scholar
G. Norman & D. Streiner (Eds.). (2003). PDQ statistics, 3rd ed. Hamilton , Ontario , Canada : B.C. Decker Inc.
Google Scholar
Oliver S. & Peersman G. (Eds.). (2001). Using research for effective health promotion. Buckingham , UK : Open University Press.
Google Scholar
Ontario Ministry of Health, Public Health Branch. (1997). Mandatory health services and program guidelines. Toronto : Queen's Printer.
Google Scholar
Rimer B.K., Glanz D.K. & Rasband G. (2001). Searching for evidence about health education and health behavior interventions. Health Education Behavior, 28(2), 231–248.
10.1177/109019810102800208
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Rychetnik L., Frommer M., Hawe P. & Shiell A. (2002). Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56(2), 119–127.
10.1136/jech.56.2.119
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Thomas H., Camiletti Y., Cava M., Feldman L., Underwood J. & Wade K. (1999). Effectiveness of parenting groups with professional involvement in improving parent and child outcomes. Ontario , Canada : Public Health Research, Education and Development Program (PHRED) .
Google Scholar
Truman B.I., Smith-Akin C.K., Hinman A.R., Gebbie K.M., Brownson R., Novick L.F., et al.. (2000). Developing the Guide to Community Preventive Services—Overview and rationale. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18(1 Suppl), 18–26.
10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00124-5
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
West S., King V., Carey T.S., Lohr K.N., McKoy N., Sutton S.F., et al.. (2002). Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47. Rockville , MD : Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality .
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume1, Issue3

September 2004

Pages 176-184

A Process for Systematically Reviewing the Literature: Providing the Research Evidence for Public Health Nursing Interventions

ABSTRACT

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

RESOURCES

RESOURCES

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

A Process for Systematically Reviewing the Literature: Providing the Research Evidence for Public Health Nursing Interventions

ABSTRACT

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information

RESOURCES

RESOURCES