在评估健康干预措施时使用贡献分析:范围审查。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-09-08 DOI:10.1177/01632787241281745
David Buetti, Michael Fitzgerald, Cassandra Barber, Patrick R Labelle, Isabelle Bourgeois, Tim Aubry, Erin Cameron, Claire E Kendall
{"title":"在评估健康干预措施时使用贡献分析:范围审查。","authors":"David Buetti, Michael Fitzgerald, Cassandra Barber, Patrick R Labelle, Isabelle Bourgeois, Tim Aubry, Erin Cameron, Claire E Kendall","doi":"10.1177/01632787241281745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Contribution Analysis (CA) is a promising theory-based evaluation approach for complex interventions, yet its application in health interventions remains largely unexplored. To bridge this gap, we conducted a scoping review to examine the extent of such applications and the methodologies, strengths, and limitations of this approach in health programming. Our comprehensive search strategy was developed and used in 15 databases to identify peer-reviewed articles from 1999 to 2023 that focused on using CA to evaluate health interventions. We then implemented rigorous double- and triple-screening processes for abstracts and full-text papers, respectively. Data were extracted and narratively summarized. Our review found seven relevant studies, which showed that CA has been employed in health promotion programs, health policies, and targeted health issues such as nutrition, cardiovascular disease, substance misuse, and suicide prevention. The studies identified strengths of using CA, including its flexible impact evaluation approach, capacity to inform decision-making, and potential to enhance understanding of health programs and policies. However, challenges such as how to determine suitable evidence levels and how to best manage resource intensity were also identified. The limited number of studies indicates that CA is still a novel approach, whereas the variation in the reporting of the studies suggests that this approach could benefit from more standardized methods and detailed stakeholder engagement strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Use of Contribution Analysis in Evaluating Health Interventions: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"David Buetti, Michael Fitzgerald, Cassandra Barber, Patrick R Labelle, Isabelle Bourgeois, Tim Aubry, Erin Cameron, Claire E Kendall\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01632787241281745\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Contribution Analysis (CA) is a promising theory-based evaluation approach for complex interventions, yet its application in health interventions remains largely unexplored. To bridge this gap, we conducted a scoping review to examine the extent of such applications and the methodologies, strengths, and limitations of this approach in health programming. Our comprehensive search strategy was developed and used in 15 databases to identify peer-reviewed articles from 1999 to 2023 that focused on using CA to evaluate health interventions. We then implemented rigorous double- and triple-screening processes for abstracts and full-text papers, respectively. Data were extracted and narratively summarized. Our review found seven relevant studies, which showed that CA has been employed in health promotion programs, health policies, and targeted health issues such as nutrition, cardiovascular disease, substance misuse, and suicide prevention. The studies identified strengths of using CA, including its flexible impact evaluation approach, capacity to inform decision-making, and potential to enhance understanding of health programs and policies. However, challenges such as how to determine suitable evidence levels and how to best manage resource intensity were also identified. The limited number of studies indicates that CA is still a novel approach, whereas the variation in the reporting of the studies suggests that this approach could benefit from more standardized methods and detailed stakeholder engagement strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241281745\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241281745","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

贡献分析(CA)是一种基于理论的复杂干预措施评估方法,前景广阔,但其在卫生干预措施中的应用在很大程度上仍未得到探索。为了弥补这一差距,我们进行了一次范围界定综述,以研究这种方法在卫生计划中的应用范围、方法、优势和局限性。我们制定了全面的检索策略,并在 15 个数据库中进行了检索,以确定 1999 年至 2023 年期间使用 CA 评估健康干预措施的同行评审文章。然后,我们分别对摘要和全文进行了严格的双重和三重筛选。我们提取了数据并进行了叙述性总结。我们的综述发现了 7 项相关研究,这些研究表明,CA 已被应用于健康促进计划、健康政策以及营养、心血管疾病、药物滥用和自杀预防等目标健康问题中。这些研究指出了使用 CA 的优势,包括其灵活的影响评估方法、为决策提供信息的能力以及增强对健康计划和政策的理解的潜力。然而,也发现了一些挑战,如如何确定合适的证据水平以及如何最好地管理资源强度。有限的研究数量表明,CA 仍是一种新方法,而研究报告的差异表明,这种方法可受益于更标准化的方法和详细的利益相关者参与策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Use of Contribution Analysis in Evaluating Health Interventions: A Scoping Review.

Contribution Analysis (CA) is a promising theory-based evaluation approach for complex interventions, yet its application in health interventions remains largely unexplored. To bridge this gap, we conducted a scoping review to examine the extent of such applications and the methodologies, strengths, and limitations of this approach in health programming. Our comprehensive search strategy was developed and used in 15 databases to identify peer-reviewed articles from 1999 to 2023 that focused on using CA to evaluate health interventions. We then implemented rigorous double- and triple-screening processes for abstracts and full-text papers, respectively. Data were extracted and narratively summarized. Our review found seven relevant studies, which showed that CA has been employed in health promotion programs, health policies, and targeted health issues such as nutrition, cardiovascular disease, substance misuse, and suicide prevention. The studies identified strengths of using CA, including its flexible impact evaluation approach, capacity to inform decision-making, and potential to enhance understanding of health programs and policies. However, challenges such as how to determine suitable evidence levels and how to best manage resource intensity were also identified. The limited number of studies indicates that CA is still a novel approach, whereas the variation in the reporting of the studies suggests that this approach could benefit from more standardized methods and detailed stakeholder engagement strategies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
Commentary: Strengthening System Readiness for Health Interventions: Lessons for Implementing Interventions and Implementation Support in Low-And Middle-Income Countries. Evidence-Based Implementation Support: Considering Motivation and Capacity Within the Ecosystem of Training and Technical Assistance. Who's at the Table? A Scoping Review of Stakeholder Engagement in Medical Education Program Evaluation. Monetary Incentives in Clinician Surveys: An Analysis and Systematic Review With a Focus on Establishing Best Practices. Cross-national Psychometric Evaluation of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Medical Student Version.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1