↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Health Promotion International, September 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
4 policy sources

Citations

dimensions_citation
439 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
472 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions
Published in
Health Promotion International, September 2005
DOI 10.1093/heapro/dai022
Pubmed ID
Authors

N Jackson, E Waters

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.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 472 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 1%
United States 4 <1%
Denmark 3 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Kenya 2 <1%
New Zealand 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 444 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 85 18%
Student > Master 84 18%
Researcher 76 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 33 7%
Student > Bachelor 21 4%
Other 87 18%
Unknown 86 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 24%
Psychology 65 14%
Social Sciences 59 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 2%
Other 74 16%
Unknown 116 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 September 2015.
All research outputs
#2,863,513
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Health Promotion International
#331
of 1,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,655
of 62,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Promotion International
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 62,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them