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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The EPHPP is considered suitable to assess the quality of a wide range of quantitative study designs, including interventions (Jackson and Waters, 2005;Deeks et al., 2003).”
From Exploring the role of exposure to green and blue spaces in preventing anxiety and depression among young people aged 14–24 years living in urban settings: A systematic review and conceptual framework (2022) · cites this paper as Jackson and Waters, 2005
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“The EPHPP has also been reported to have better interrater reliability than the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool”
From Improving Mental Health Service Utilization Among Men: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Behavior Change Techniques Within Interventions Targeting Help-Seeking (2019) · cites this paper as Jackson & Waters, 2005
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322 · Cited by 7,217
Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-5664 · Cited by 4,083
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006) · doi:10.1002/9780470754887 · Cited by 3,586
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., & the TREND Group (2004) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.94.3.361 · Cited by 2,817
Thomas, B. H., Ciliska, D., Dobbins, M., & Micucci, S. (2004) · Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2004.04006.x · Cited by 2,118
Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/s0272-7358(97)00043-3 · Cited by 1,557 · cited 3×
“In order to provide a comprehensive picture of intervention integrity Dane and Schneider believe that five dimensions of the intervention should be measured (Dane and Schneider, 1998).”
BackgroundInfluentialShediac-Rizkallah, M. C., & Bone, L. R. (1998) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/13.1.87 · Cited by 1,129
Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions
Rychetnik, L., Frommer, M., Hawe, P., & Shiell, A. (2002) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.56.2.119 · Cited by 1,042
Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973239800800305 · Cited by 987
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Green, L. W. and Kreuter, M. W. (1999) Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach, 3rd Edition. Mayfield Publishing Company, California, USA.
- Hawe, P., Degeling, D. and Hall, J. (1990) Evaluating Health Promotion: A Workers Guide. MacLennan and Petty Pty Limited, Sydney Australia, pp. 101–127.
- 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
Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
Tacconelli, E. (2010) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70065-7 · Cited by 3,270
Armijo‐Olivo, S., Stiles, C. R., Hagen, N. A., Biondo, P. D., & Cummings, G. G. (2012) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x · Cited by 1,539
Individual determinants of research utilization by nurses: a systematic review update
Squires, J. E., Estabrooks, C. A., Gustavsson, P., & Wallin, L. (2011) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-1 · Cited by 798
Langford, R., Bonell, C. P., Jones, H. E., Pouliou, T., Murphy, S. M., Waters, E., Komro, K. A., Gibbs, L. F., Magnus, D., & Campbell, R. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008958.pub2 · Cited by 768
Self-citationImplementation of school based physical activity interventions: A systematic review
Naylor, P.-J., Nettlefold, L., Race, D., Hoy, C., Ashe, M. C., Wharf Higgins, J., & McKay, H. A. (2015) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.12.034 · Cited by 550
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
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
