Recommendations for the reporting and synthesis of complex public health interventions for improved health policy and public health program planning

Armstrong, R., Waters, E., Moore, L., Riggs, E., Cuervo L., Lumbiganon, P., et al. (2008). Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: Advancing TREND and CONSORT. Journal of Public Health, 30, 103-109.

Description

Despite the wide acceptance of reporting templates and checklists for clinical randomized controlled trials (e.g., the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT]), there still exists a lack of guidance when dealing with trials that study complex public health interventions. Improved reporting and synthesis of complex interventions may increase the uptake of such trial evidence among health care policy makers and public health program planners. The aim of this paper is to help facilitate the use of systematic review evidence and trials on complex public health interventions among decision makers in public health.

This paper examines existing frameworks, and provides a method and future recommendations on how best to report on and synthesize evidence that will lead to the greatest impact on health policy. Suggestions incorporate factors relevant to complex public health interventions such as:

Intervention model
Theoretical and ethical considerations
Study design choice
Integrity of intervention/process evaluation
Context
Differential effects
Inequalities
Sustainability

CONSORT and the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomized Designs (TREND) were used throughout the analysis. Each was regarded as an established frameworks designed to identify where gaps exist when reporting, synthesizing and evaluating published data for use in public health policy making and public health program planning based on complex public health interventions.

Steps for Using Method/Tool

This paper outlines a new reporting framework that will increase the chance of systematic reviews and evidence synthesis being relevant to public health policy makers and public health program planners.

New and improved reporting includes the consideration of the following items within already established reporting domains:

Introduction/background: consider the intervention model and theoretical considerations
Methods: consider the study design choice
Results: consider the integrity of intervention/process evaluation, context, differential effects and multi-level processes, sustainability
Discussion: consider highlighting any limitations of study design, interpret and discuss subgroup effects or interactions with context, reflect on original model/theory, appraise unintended effects

These summaries are written by the NCCMT to condense and to provide an overview of the resources listed in the Registry of Methods and Tools and to give suggestions for their use in a public health context. For more information on individual methods and tools included in the review, please consult the authors/developers of the original resources.

We have provided the resources and links as a convenience and for informational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by McMaster University of any of the products, services or opinions of the external organizations, nor have the external organizations endorsed their resources and links as provided by McMaster University. McMaster University bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external sites.