Cited by 172Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceDelphi Technique in Research

Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT

Armstrong, R., Waters, E., Moore, L., Riggs, E., Cuervo, L. G., Lumbiganon, P., Hawe, P.·2008·Journal of Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based public health decision-making depends on high quality and transparent accounts of what interventions are effective, for whom, how and at what cost. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized and non-randomized study designs through the CONSORT and TREND statements has had a marked impact on the quality of study designs. However, public health users of systematic reviews have been concerned with the paucity of synthesized information on context, development and rationale, implementation processes and sustainability factors. METHODS: This paper examines the existing reporting frameworks for research against information sought by users of systematic reviews of public health interventions and suggests additional items that should be considered in future recommendations on the reporting of public health interventions. RESULTS: Intervention model, theoretical and ethical considerations, study design choice, integrity of intervention/process evaluation, context, differential effects and inequalities and sustainability are often overlooked in reports of public health interventions. CONCLUSION: Population health policy makers need synthesized, detailed and high quality a priori accounts of effective interventions in order to make better progress in tackling population morbidities and inequalities. Adding simple criteria to reporting standards will significantly improve the quality and usefulness of published evidence and increase its impact on public health program planning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/pubmed/fdm082

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Reporting guidelines have been demonstrated to improve reporting of research, thereby allowing consumers of the research to be aware of the strengths, limitations, and accuracy of conclusions.

    “Reporting guidelines have been demonstrated to improve reporting of research, thereby allowing for consumers of the research to be aware of the strengths, limitations, and accuracy of conclusions [12,82–84].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Armstrong, R., Waters, E., Moore, L., Riggs, E., Cuervo, L. G., Lumbiganon, P., & Hawe, P.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • World Health Organization Regional Office for the Americas (US)
  • Khon Kaen University (TH)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Armstrong, R.
Venue
Journal of Public Health
Published
2008-01-19
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
103-109
ISSN
  • 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3842
  • 1741-3850
OpenAlex
W2100264998
Cited by
171
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 13
FWCI
15.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (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 › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
reporting quality, public health interventions, CONSORT statement, reporting guidelines, intervention implementation, sustainability, context, differential effects, health disparities, population health policy, systematic reviews
MeSH terms
Decision Making, United Kingdom, Health Policy, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Public Health, Public Health Practice, Evidence-Based Medicine, Health Status Disparities

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