IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2016.303583_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practice-based evidence in community guide systematic reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Vaidya, N.
  • Thota, A.B.
  • Proia, K.K.
  • Jamieson, S.
  • Mercer, S.L.
  • Elder, R.W.
  • Yoon, P.
  • Kaufmann, R.
  • Zaza, S.

Abstract

Objectives. To assess the relative contributions and quality of practice-based evidence (PBE) and research-based evidence (RBE) in The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide). Methods. We developed operational definitions for PBE and RBE in which the main distinguishing feature was whether allocation of participants to intervention and comparison conditions was under the control of researchers (RBE) or not (PBE). We conceptualized a continuum between RBE and PBE.Wethen categorized 3656 studies in 202 reviews completed since The Community Guide began in 1996. Results. Fifty-four percent of studies were PBE and 46% RBE. Community-based and policy reviews had more PBE. Health care system and programmatic reviews had more RBE. The majority of both PBE and RBE studies were of high quality according to Community Guide scoring methods. Conclusions. The inclusion of substantial PBE in Community Guide reviews suggests that evidence of adequate rigor to inform practice is being produced. This should increase stakeholders' confidence that The Community Guide provides recommendations with real-world relevance. Limitations in some PBE studies suggest a need for strengthening practice-relevant designs and external validity reporting standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Vaidya, N. & Thota, A.B. & Proia, K.K. & Jamieson, S. & Mercer, S.L. & Elder, R.W. & Yoon, P. & Kaufmann, R. & Zaza, S., 2017. "Practice-based evidence in community guide systematic reviews," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 107(3), pages 413-420.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2016.303583_6
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303583
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303583
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303583?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2016.303583_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.