The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review.
Open accessAbstract
NHS R&D HTA ProgrammeT he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS.Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources.The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment.Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects.These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA).This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care.It was identified as a priority by the Methodology Panel and funded as project number 94/09/01.The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health.The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein.In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee.This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.
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.
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
Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.377 · Cited by 8,252
Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care
Black, N. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215 · Cited by 1,598
MIXOR: a computer program for mixed-effects ordinal regression analysis
Hedeker, D., & Gibbons, R. D. (1996) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/0169-2607(96)01720-8 · Cited by 408
Dowse, G. K., Gareeboo, H., Alberti, K. G. M. M., Zimmet, P., Tuomilehto, J., Purran, A., Fareed, D., Chitsono, P., Collins, V. R., & Hemraj, F. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7015.1255 · Cited by 241
Statistical considerations in the design and analysis of community intervention trials
Donner, A., & Klar, N. (1996) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(95)00511-0 · Cited by 230
Luepker, R. V., Rastam, L., Hannan, P. J., Murray, D. M., Gray, C., Baker, W. L., Crow, R., Jacobs, D. R., Pirie, P. L., Mascioli, S. R., et al. (1996) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008936 · Cited by 105
The benefit of seat belt legislation in the United Kingdom.
McCarthy, M. (1989) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.43.3.218 · Cited by 32
Cited by
Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
Campbell, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 · Cited by 3,474
Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., & for the CONSORT Group (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e5661 · Cited by 3,510
Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies
Grimshaw, J., Thomas, R., MacLennan, G., Fraser, C., Ramsay, C., Vale, L., Whitty, P., Eccles, M., Matowe, L., Shirran, L., et al. (2004) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta8060 · Cited by 3,044
CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Elbourne, D. R., & Altman, D. G. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7441.702 · Cited by 2,557
Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes
Flodgren, G., Parmelli, E., Doumit, G., Gattellari, M., O'Brien, M. A., Grimshaw, J., & Eccles, M. P. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000125.pub4 · Cited by 1,070
Metadata
- Authors
- Ukoumunne, Gulliford, Chinn, Sterne, & Burney
- Venue
- Health Technology Assessment
- Published
- 1999
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- iii-92
- ISSN
- 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
- 2046-4924
- OpenAlex
- W4320288061
- Cited by
- 1,210
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 7.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3310/hta3050
- The paper
- Ukoumunne, Gulliford, Chinn, Sterne, & Burney. (1999). Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta3050
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.