CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 572Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions

Open access
Jackson, N., Waters, E.·2005·Health Promotion International
DOI 10.1093/heapro/dai022
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Systematic reviews of public health interventions are fraught with challenges. Complexity is inherent; this may be due to multi-component interventions, diverse study populations, multiple outcomes measured, mixed study designs utilized and the effect of context on intervention design, implementation and effectiveness. For policy makers and practitioners to use systematic reviews to implement effective public health programmes, systematic reviews must include this information, which seeks to answer the questions posed by decision makers, including recipients of programmes. This necessitates expanding the traditional evaluation of evidence to incorporate the assessment of theory, integrity of interventions, context and sustainability of the interventions and outcomes. Unfortunately however, the critical information required for judging both the quality of a public health intervention and whether or not an intervention is worthwhile or replicable is missing from most public health intervention studies. When the raw material is not available in primary studies the systematic review process becomes even more challenging. Systematic reviews, which highlight these critical gaps, may act to encourage better reporting in primary studies. This paper provides recommendations to reviewers on the issues to address within a public health systematic review and, indirectly, provides advice to researchers on the reporting requirements of primary studies for the production of high quality systematic reviews.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/heapro/dai022

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Green, L. W. and Kreuter, M. W. (1999) Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach, 3rd Edition. Mayfield Publishing Company, California, USA.
  2. Hawe, P., Degeling, D. and Hall, J. (1990) Evaluating Health Promotion: A Workers Guide. MacLennan and Petty Pty Limited, Sydney Australia, pp. 101–127.
  3. Jackson, S. F., Edwards, R. K., Kahan, B. and Goodstadt, M. (2001) An Assessment of the Methods and Concepts Used to Synthesize the Evidence of Effectiveness in Health Promotion: A Review of 17 Initiatives. Canadian Consortium for Health Promotion Research, Toronto.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 566

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Jackson, N., & Waters, E.
Affiliations
Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Jackson, N.
ORCID
Jackson, N.
Venue
Health Promotion International
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2005-09-16
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
367-374
ISSN
  • 0957-4824 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2245
DOI
10.1093/heapro/dai022
OpenAlex
W2144393519
Cited by
572
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 20
FWCI
3.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Health Promotion International (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
public health interventions, health promotion interventions, multicomponent intervention, intervention context, intervention sustainability, intervention integrity, intervention theory, review recommendation
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Health Promotion, Humans, Public Health, Research, Research Design, Program Evaluation, Program Development, Guidelines as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review