A Comparison of Methods for Testing and Implementing Community Health Interventions in Childhood: A Realist Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Innovative methods to test healthcare interventions have recently emerged to help provide more targeted, effective, and scalable interventions. Given the importance of the early years for children’s development, improved interventions for vulnerable children and families have become public health imperatives. Traditional randomized control trials (RCTs), considered the gold standards, have serious limitations due to high costs, time demands, and issues with the generalizability of the results. Indeed, new accelerated methods are being considered to improve the efficiency of RCTs. Thus, we compared innovative methods with RCTs in their ability to test and implement interventions. We also provided recommendations for best practices in the child-health research. Methods: A realist review was undertaken to identify and make recommendations on what works for whom and under what circumstances. This realist meta-review was conducted as an umbrella review of reviews, supplemented by a synthesis of the targeted grey-literature, to report both peer-reviewed and practice-based evidence on evaluation methods for community child-health interventions. We searched electronic databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the grey literature, and provided references. We identified, selected, and appraised sources if they were (1) written in English, (2) answered our research question, (3) described/criticized a method for intervention evaluation, and (4) focused on community-based health interventions. Results: For our final analysis, out of 5167 identified documents, we selected those that criticized or reviewed RCTs (n = 13) and innovative methods (n = 31). Following Pawson’s recommendations, we developed an extraction tool to promote a consistent approach and assessed to what degree each method enabled evaluation, was theory driven, offered clear guidelines, provided clear methods or tools, fostered innovation, was fast and generalizable, worked for who and under what circumstances, and focused on children and child-related research. Conclusions: Innovative and accelerated methods offer promising alternatives to the traditional RCTs for evaluating community-based child health interventions. Among these, the Innovate, Develop, Evaluate, Adapt, and Scale (IDEAS) method emerged as the most integrative and context-sensitive approach to evaluate early interventions in a variety of settings. Other innovative methods were not well-developed, compromising the internal validity of studies focused on promoting children’s health in community settings. Graphical abstract synthesizes the phases of RCTs and contrasts them with IDEAS.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».