Cargando…

A review of Grey and academic literature of evaluation guidance relevant to public health interventions

BACKGROUND: Public Health evaluation is essential to understanding what does and does not work, and robust demonstration of effectiveness may be crucial to securing future funding. Despite this, programs are often implemented with poor, incomplete or no evaluation. Public health practitioners are fr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Denford, Sarah, Abraham, Charles, Callaghan, Margaret, Aighton, Peter, De Vocht, Frank, Arris, Steven
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5596848/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28899388
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2588-2
_version_ 1783263614239506432
author Denford, Sarah
Abraham, Charles
Callaghan, Margaret
Aighton, Peter
De Vocht, Frank
Arris, Steven
author_facet Denford, Sarah
Abraham, Charles
Callaghan, Margaret
Aighton, Peter
De Vocht, Frank
Arris, Steven
author_sort Denford, Sarah
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Public Health evaluation is essential to understanding what does and does not work, and robust demonstration of effectiveness may be crucial to securing future funding. Despite this, programs are often implemented with poor, incomplete or no evaluation. Public health practitioners are frequently required to provide evidence for the effectiveness of their services; thus, there is a growing need for evaluation guidance on how to evaluate public health programs. The aim of this study is to identify accessible high-quality, evaluation guidance, available to researchers and practitioners and to catalogue, summarise and categorise the content of a subset of accessible, quality guides to evaluation. METHODS: We systematically reviewed grey and academic literature for documents providing support for evaluation of complex health interventions. Searches were conducted January to March 2015, and included academic databases, internet search engines, and consultations with academic and practicing public health experts. Data were extracted by two authors and sent to the authors of the guidance documents for comments. RESULTS: Our initial search identified 402 unique documents that were screened to identify those that were (1) developed by or for a national or international organization (2) freely available to all (3) published during or after 2000 (4) specific to public health. This yielded 98 documents from 43 organisations. Of these, 48 were reviewed in detail. This generated a detailed catalogue of quality evaluation guidance. The content included in documents covers 37 facets of evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of guidance on evaluation of public health initiatives is available. Time and knowledge constraints may mean that busy practitioners find it challenging to access the most, up-to-date, relevant and useful guidance. This review presents links to and reviews of 48 quality guides to evaluation as well as categorising their content. This facilitates quick and each access to multiple selected sources of specific guidance. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-017-2588-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5596848
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55968482017-09-15 A review of Grey and academic literature of evaluation guidance relevant to public health interventions Denford, Sarah Abraham, Charles Callaghan, Margaret Aighton, Peter De Vocht, Frank Arris, Steven BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Public Health evaluation is essential to understanding what does and does not work, and robust demonstration of effectiveness may be crucial to securing future funding. Despite this, programs are often implemented with poor, incomplete or no evaluation. Public health practitioners are frequently required to provide evidence for the effectiveness of their services; thus, there is a growing need for evaluation guidance on how to evaluate public health programs. The aim of this study is to identify accessible high-quality, evaluation guidance, available to researchers and practitioners and to catalogue, summarise and categorise the content of a subset of accessible, quality guides to evaluation. METHODS: We systematically reviewed grey and academic literature for documents providing support for evaluation of complex health interventions. Searches were conducted January to March 2015, and included academic databases, internet search engines, and consultations with academic and practicing public health experts. Data were extracted by two authors and sent to the authors of the guidance documents for comments. RESULTS: Our initial search identified 402 unique documents that were screened to identify those that were (1) developed by or for a national or international organization (2) freely available to all (3) published during or after 2000 (4) specific to public health. This yielded 98 documents from 43 organisations. Of these, 48 were reviewed in detail. This generated a detailed catalogue of quality evaluation guidance. The content included in documents covers 37 facets of evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of guidance on evaluation of public health initiatives is available. Time and knowledge constraints may mean that busy practitioners find it challenging to access the most, up-to-date, relevant and useful guidance. This review presents links to and reviews of 48 quality guides to evaluation as well as categorising their content. This facilitates quick and each access to multiple selected sources of specific guidance. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-017-2588-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5596848/ /pubmed/28899388 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2588-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Denford, Sarah
Abraham, Charles
Callaghan, Margaret
Aighton, Peter
De Vocht, Frank
Arris, Steven
A review of Grey and academic literature of evaluation guidance relevant to public health interventions
title A review of Grey and academic literature of evaluation guidance relevant to public health interventions
title_full A review of Grey and academic literature of evaluation guidance relevant to public health interventions
title_fullStr A review of Grey and academic literature of evaluation guidance relevant to public health interventions
title_full_unstemmed A review of Grey and academic literature of evaluation guidance relevant to public health interventions
title_short A review of Grey and academic literature of evaluation guidance relevant to public health interventions
title_sort review of grey and academic literature of evaluation guidance relevant to public health interventions
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5596848/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28899388
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2588-2
work_keys_str_mv AT denfordsarah areviewofgreyandacademicliteratureofevaluationguidancerelevanttopublichealthinterventions
AT abrahamcharles areviewofgreyandacademicliteratureofevaluationguidancerelevanttopublichealthinterventions
AT callaghanmargaret areviewofgreyandacademicliteratureofevaluationguidancerelevanttopublichealthinterventions
AT aightonpeter areviewofgreyandacademicliteratureofevaluationguidancerelevanttopublichealthinterventions
AT devochtfrank areviewofgreyandacademicliteratureofevaluationguidancerelevanttopublichealthinterventions
AT arrissteven areviewofgreyandacademicliteratureofevaluationguidancerelevanttopublichealthinterventions
AT denfordsarah reviewofgreyandacademicliteratureofevaluationguidancerelevanttopublichealthinterventions
AT abrahamcharles reviewofgreyandacademicliteratureofevaluationguidancerelevanttopublichealthinterventions
AT callaghanmargaret reviewofgreyandacademicliteratureofevaluationguidancerelevanttopublichealthinterventions
AT aightonpeter reviewofgreyandacademicliteratureofevaluationguidancerelevanttopublichealthinterventions
AT devochtfrank reviewofgreyandacademicliteratureofevaluationguidancerelevanttopublichealthinterventions
AT arrissteven reviewofgreyandacademicliteratureofevaluationguidancerelevanttopublichealthinterventions