Journal of Public Health Advance Access published online on January 19, 2008
Journal of Public Health, doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdm082
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT
Rebecca Armstrong, Senior Research Fellow1,2,
Elizabeth Waters, Professorial Fellow, Public Health and Health Equity1,2
Laurence Moore, Professor and Director3
Elisha Riggs, Research Fellow2
Luis Gabriel Cuervo, MD, Unit Chief, Research Promotion and Development4
Pisake Lumbiganon, Professor in Ob & Gyn5
Penelope Hawe, Professor, Markin Chair in Health and Society & Alberta Heritage, Foundation for Medical Research Health Scientist6
1 Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field, VicHealth, PO Box 154, Carlton South, VIC 3053, Melbourne, Australia
2 The McCaughey Centre: the VicHealth Centre for the Promotion of Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
3 Cardiff Institute of Society, Health and Ethics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK
4 Pan American Health Organization (WHO/PAHO), Washington DC, USA
5 Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
6 Population Health Intervention Research Centre, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
Address correspondence to Rebecca Armstrong, E-mail: rarmstrong{at}vichealth.vic.gov.au
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Background Evidence-based public health decision-making depends on high quality and transparent accounts of what interventions are effective, for whom, how and at what cost. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized and non-randomized study designs through the CONSORT and TREND statements has had a marked impact on the quality of study designs. However, public health users of systematic reviews have been concerned with the paucity of synthesized information on context, development and rationale, implementation processes and sustainability factors.
Methods This paper examines the existing reporting frameworks for research against information sought by users of systematic reviews of public health interventions and suggests additional items that should be considered in future recommendations on the reporting of public health interventions.
Results Intervention model, theoretical and ethical considerations, study design choice, integrity of intervention/process evaluation, context, differential effects and inequalities and sustainability are often overlooked in reports of public health interventions.
Conclusion Population health policy makers need synthesized, detailed and high quality a priori accounts of effective interventions in order to make better progress in tackling population morbidities and inequalities. Adding simple criteria to reporting standards will significantly improve the quality and usefulness of published evidence and increase its impact on public health program planning.
Keywords: public health, primary research, evidence, editorial policies
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent those of the organisations within which authors are employed