Reviewing Evidence for Health Promotion Practice
Full course description
When you make evidence-based decisions, the best thing you can do is to use the results of multiple studies that have investigated the same topic. Combining results of multiple studies can be done by means of systematic reviews of the literature. In this course you learn how to conduct a systematic review. Evidence-based working is important in the field of health promotion. Evidence-based health promotion means using the best available evidence for making decisions about health promotion activities. For example, when you work as a health promoter, you should make decisions about determinants that need to be targeted in an intervention to modify a specific behavior for a specific target audience. Or you should make decisions about interventions or intervention components that can be effective in modifying a specific behavior. During this course you will be introduced to, and gain experience in, the process of a systematic review on a self-selected topic. A systematic review provides a detailed overview of evidence regarding current knowledge in a certain area of research, based on a specific research question. It does so by collating all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer the specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected to minimize bias, thus providing reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made. The aim of this course is for you to formulate such a research question and to find, select, read and evaluate scientific literature critically. You will also learn how to acquire skills in reporting on the results of this process in an advisory report and in providing and receiving peer feedback. The final end product will be the writing of an advisory report and the developing of an infographic based on your systematic review, following the standard steps described in literature.
Course objectives
This module has several general goals. First, students will get knowledge and skills regarding the formulation of a sound research question and finding, selecting, reading and evaluating literature critically. Second, students will learn how to appraise scientific literature and how to use it in writing an advisory report and in developing an infographic for practice. Third, students will get skills in providing and receiving peer feedback
Recommended reading
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Clarke, M.,Devereaux, P.J., Kleijnen, J., Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. British Medical Journal, 39, b2700.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., for the PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRIsMa statement. British Medical Journal, 339, b2535 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535.
Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., et. al. for the PRISMA group (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372 (71)
Zaza, S., Wright-De Agu ̈ero, L.K., Briss, P.A.,Truman, B.I. Hopkins, D.P., Hennessy, M.H., Sosin, D.M., Anderson, L. Carande-Kulis, V.G., S.M. Teutsch, Pappaioanou, M. (2000). Data Collection Instrument and Procedure for Systematic Reviews in the Guide to Community Preventive Services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18, 1S, 44–74.
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Altman, D. G. (2001). Systematic reviews in Health Care. Meta-analysis in context. BMJ books.
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Götzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj 2011; 343
Heddle NM. The research question. Transfusion 2007; 47:15-17
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. Jama 2000; 283:2008-2012
Leppink J, O'Sullivan P, Winston K. Effect size - large, medium and small. Perspect Med Educ 2016; 5: 346-349
Cohen J. The earth is round (p<.05). American Psychologist 1994