Extending systematic reviews to include evidence on implementation: methodological work on a review of community-based initiatives to prevent injuries

Katrina Roen, Lisa Arai, Helen Roberts, Jennie Popay

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Unintentional injury is a leading cause of mortality and disability among young and old. While evidence about the effectiveness of interventions in reducing injuries is accumulating, reviews of this evidence frequently fail to include details of implementation processes. Our research, of which the work reported here formed a part, had two main objectives: (1) to identify evidence about the implementation of interventions aimed at reducing unintentional injuries amongst children and young people; and (2) to explore methods for systematically reviewing evidence on implementation. Existing systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce unintentional injuries in children and young people formed the starting point for the work reported here. In summary, many of the published papers we identified contained little information on implementation processes and, even when these were discussed, the extent to which authors' claims were based on research evidence was unclear. On the basis of the studies we reviewed implementation data were insufficiently strong to provide a sound evidence base for practitioners and policymakers. Notwithstanding this, we identified valuable data about the context in which such initiatives are implemented and the type of factors that might impinge on implementation. This work has implications in three areas: (1) researchers with an interest in evidence-based public health could be encouraged to consider implementation issues in the design of intervention studies; (2) funding bodies could be encouraged to prioritise intervention studies using mixed methods that will enable researchers to consider effectiveness and implementation; (3) journal editors could work towards increasing the quality of reporting on implementation issues through the development of guidelines.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1060-71
Number of pages12
JournalSocial Science and Medicine
Volume63
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Wounds and Injuries
community
evidence
Research Personnel
Research
Public Health
Guidelines
Mortality
Systematic Review
mortality
public health
editor
funding
disability
cause

Cite this

@article{37eb071aa37b46b2b7f73df54af019a8,
title = "Extending systematic reviews to include evidence on implementation: methodological work on a review of community-based initiatives to prevent injuries",
abstract = "Unintentional injury is a leading cause of mortality and disability among young and old. While evidence about the effectiveness of interventions in reducing injuries is accumulating, reviews of this evidence frequently fail to include details of implementation processes. Our research, of which the work reported here formed a part, had two main objectives: (1) to identify evidence about the implementation of interventions aimed at reducing unintentional injuries amongst children and young people; and (2) to explore methods for systematically reviewing evidence on implementation. Existing systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce unintentional injuries in children and young people formed the starting point for the work reported here. In summary, many of the published papers we identified contained little information on implementation processes and, even when these were discussed, the extent to which authors' claims were based on research evidence was unclear. On the basis of the studies we reviewed implementation data were insufficiently strong to provide a sound evidence base for practitioners and policymakers. Notwithstanding this, we identified valuable data about the context in which such initiatives are implemented and the type of factors that might impinge on implementation. This work has implications in three areas: (1) researchers with an interest in evidence-based public health could be encouraged to consider implementation issues in the design of intervention studies; (2) funding bodies could be encouraged to prioritise intervention studies using mixed methods that will enable researchers to consider effectiveness and implementation; (3) journal editors could work towards increasing the quality of reporting on implementation issues through the development of guidelines.",
author = "Katrina Roen and Lisa Arai and Helen Roberts and Jennie Popay",
year = "2006",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.02.013",
language = "English",
volume = "63",
pages = "1060--71",
journal = "Social Science and Medicine",
issn = "0277-9536",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "4",

}

Extending systematic reviews to include evidence on implementation : methodological work on a review of community-based initiatives to prevent injuries. / Roen, Katrina; Arai, Lisa; Roberts, Helen; Popay, Jennie.

In: Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 63, No. 4, 08.2006, p. 1060-71.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Extending systematic reviews to include evidence on implementation

T2 - methodological work on a review of community-based initiatives to prevent injuries

AU - Roen, Katrina

AU - Arai, Lisa

AU - Roberts, Helen

AU - Popay, Jennie

PY - 2006/8

Y1 - 2006/8

N2 - Unintentional injury is a leading cause of mortality and disability among young and old. While evidence about the effectiveness of interventions in reducing injuries is accumulating, reviews of this evidence frequently fail to include details of implementation processes. Our research, of which the work reported here formed a part, had two main objectives: (1) to identify evidence about the implementation of interventions aimed at reducing unintentional injuries amongst children and young people; and (2) to explore methods for systematically reviewing evidence on implementation. Existing systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce unintentional injuries in children and young people formed the starting point for the work reported here. In summary, many of the published papers we identified contained little information on implementation processes and, even when these were discussed, the extent to which authors' claims were based on research evidence was unclear. On the basis of the studies we reviewed implementation data were insufficiently strong to provide a sound evidence base for practitioners and policymakers. Notwithstanding this, we identified valuable data about the context in which such initiatives are implemented and the type of factors that might impinge on implementation. This work has implications in three areas: (1) researchers with an interest in evidence-based public health could be encouraged to consider implementation issues in the design of intervention studies; (2) funding bodies could be encouraged to prioritise intervention studies using mixed methods that will enable researchers to consider effectiveness and implementation; (3) journal editors could work towards increasing the quality of reporting on implementation issues through the development of guidelines.

AB - Unintentional injury is a leading cause of mortality and disability among young and old. While evidence about the effectiveness of interventions in reducing injuries is accumulating, reviews of this evidence frequently fail to include details of implementation processes. Our research, of which the work reported here formed a part, had two main objectives: (1) to identify evidence about the implementation of interventions aimed at reducing unintentional injuries amongst children and young people; and (2) to explore methods for systematically reviewing evidence on implementation. Existing systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce unintentional injuries in children and young people formed the starting point for the work reported here. In summary, many of the published papers we identified contained little information on implementation processes and, even when these were discussed, the extent to which authors' claims were based on research evidence was unclear. On the basis of the studies we reviewed implementation data were insufficiently strong to provide a sound evidence base for practitioners and policymakers. Notwithstanding this, we identified valuable data about the context in which such initiatives are implemented and the type of factors that might impinge on implementation. This work has implications in three areas: (1) researchers with an interest in evidence-based public health could be encouraged to consider implementation issues in the design of intervention studies; (2) funding bodies could be encouraged to prioritise intervention studies using mixed methods that will enable researchers to consider effectiveness and implementation; (3) journal editors could work towards increasing the quality of reporting on implementation issues through the development of guidelines.

U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.02.013

DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.02.013

M3 - Review article

VL - 63

SP - 1060

EP - 1071

JO - Social Science and Medicine

JF - Social Science and Medicine

SN - 0277-9536

IS - 4

ER -