Jodie Doyle

‘Scoping the scope’ of a cochrane review

Systematic reviews use a transparent and systematic process to define a research question, search for studies, assess their quality and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively. A crucial step in the systematic review process is to thoroughly define the scope of the research question. This requires an understanding of existing literature, including gaps and uncertainties, clarification of definitions related to the research question and an understanding of the way in which these are conceptualized within existing literature. This information is often acquired in an ad hoc fashion, however a useful and increasingly popular way to collect and organize important background information and develop a picture of the existing evidence base is to conduct a scoping review. Such reviews may be published as a research outcome in their own right and are appealing since they produce a broad map of the evidence that, if sufficiently transparent and widely available via publication, can be used by many and for applications beyond the authors originally intended purpose. Scoping reviews can inform a systematic review, particularly one with a very broad topic scope, such as those edited by the Cochrane Public Health Group.

Essential components of public health evidence reviews: capturing intervention complexity, implementation, economics and equity

Carefully developed recommendations for conducting studies of programme effectiveness have provided an extremely useful framework for researchers and articulated the different components required to answer not only the question of effectiveness (does it work?), but also the equally important questions of how, why and for whom was the programme effective. However, the continued emphasis on the use of the term ‘complex’ in describing the intervention itself or the system within which it is contextualized can detract from our ability to focus on the strategies required to better understand the strengths or limitations of the evidence base for decision-making. Social and public health interventions operate in a context that demands explicit recognition of politics, service systems, funding flows and shortages, staff competencies and multi-strategic approaches. For those immersed in the complicated political and scientific acrobatics of coordinating studies of programme implementation and evaluation, any real or perceived misalignment in the connection between research effectiveness trials versus policy relevant implementation knowledge must be overcome. Devising relatively simple approaches to understand complexity can assist in making complexity more manageable so that meaningful answers to important policy and practice questions can emerge. In this paper we argue that if reviews of intervention evidence are to be useful to decision-makers at all, contextual and implementation information is an essential, nonnegotiable component of the review process. We highlight steps evidence review authors can take to capture and interpret this information. With relatively small changes or additions to the evidence review process, practical, meaningful and rigorous public health evidence can be generated. Practical steps for embracing complexity and ensuring policy relevance

Evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions: the role and activities of the Cochrane Collaboration

Public health decision makers, funders, practitioners, and the public are increasingly interested in the evidence that underpins public health decision making. Decisions in public health cover a vast range of activities. With the ever increasing global volume of primary research, knowledge and changes in thinking and approaches, quality systematic reviews of all the available research that is relevant to a particular practice or policy decision are an efficient way to synthesise and utilise research efforts. The Cochrane Collaboration includes an organised entity that aims to increase the quality and quantity of public health systematic reviews, through a range of activities. This paper aims to provide a glossary of the terms and activities related to public health and the Cochrane Collaboration.

Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health research

Background: Systematic reviews of health promotion and public health interventions are increasingly being conducted to assist public policy decision making. Many intra-country initiatives have been established to conduct systematic reviews in their relevant public health areas. The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organisation established to conduct and publish systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, is committed to high quality reviews that are regularly updated, published electronically, and meeting the needs of the consumers. Aims: To identify global priorities for Cochrane systematic reviews of public health topics. Methods: Systematic reviews of public health interventions were identified and mapped against global health risks. Global health organisations were engaged and nominated policy-urgent titles, evidence based selection criteria were applied to set priorities. Results: 26 priority systematic review titles were identified, addressing interventions such as community building activities, pre-natal and early infancy psychosocial outcomes, and improving the nutrition status of refugee and displaced populations. Discussion: The 26 priority titles provide an opportunity for potential reviewers and indeed, the Cochrane Collaboration as a whole, to address the previously unmet needs of global health policy and research agencies.

Better evidence about wicked issues in tackling health inequities

Mark Petticrew1, Peter Tugwell2, Vivian Welch2, Erin Ueffing2, Elizabeth Kristjansson2,3, Rebecca Armstrong4, Jodie Doyle4, Elizabeth Waters4 Public and Environmental Health Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5 School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5 McCaughey Centre, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3153, Australia Address correspondence to Rebecca Armstrong, E-mail: rarmstrong@vichealth.vic.gov.au

Cochrane update : Predicting sustainability of intervention effects in public health evidence: identifying key elements to provide guidance

Jillian Whelan1, Penelope Love1, Tahna Pettman1,2, Jodie Doyle2, Sue Booth1,3, Erin Smith1, Elizabeth Waters1,2 The CO-OPS Collaboration, WHO Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, Population Health SRC, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia Cochrane Public Health Group, Jack Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Department of Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia Address correspondence to Jillian Whelan, E-mail: jill.whelan@deakin.edu.au

Strengthening evaluation to capture the breadth of public health practice: ideal vs. real.

Tahna L. Pettman2, Rebecca Armstrong1,2, Jodie Doyle1,2, Belinda Burford1,2, Laurie M. Anderson2, Tessa Hillgrove3, Nikki Honey3, Elizabeth Waters1,2 Jack Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program, McCaughey Centre, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Cochrane Public Health Group, McCaughey Centre, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Knowledge and Environments for Health Unit, The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), Carlton, Victoria, Australia Address correspondence to Tahna Pettman, E-mail: tpettman@unimelb.edu.au

Slum upgrading review: methodological challenges that arise in systematic reviews of complex interventions

We recently completed and published a review of significanceto many developing, and low- and middle-income countries,with funding from the International Initiative for ImpactEvaluation (3ie). The review is concerned with slum upgradingstrategies involving physical environment and infrastructureinterventions and their effects on health and socio-economicoutcomes.

Issues raised in systematic reviews of complex multisectoral and community based interventions

Jodie Doyle1, Rebecca Armstrong1, Elizabeth Waters2 Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, 15–31, Pelham Street, PO Box 154, Carlton South, Melbourne, VIC 3053, Australia The McCaughey Centre: VicHealth Centre for the Promotion of Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Level 5, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, VIC 3010, Australia

Tracking and understanding the utility of Cochrane reviews for public health decision-making

Cochrane reviews aim to support policy and practice decisions. Developing systematic strategies to understand the pathway from their production to actually making a difference in practice is difficult but extremely valuable. Such an exercise can help to determine meaningfulness of the reviews, identify their use in highlighting the spectrum of the primary evidence, flag opportunities to update and stimulate research gap analyses. This paper briefly describes our emerging approach to tracking and understanding the use, and usefulness, of published Cochrane Public Health Group (CPHG) reviews to date.