TIDieR-PHP: a reporting guideline for population health and policy interventions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Campbell M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5954974 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
TIDieR-PHP: a reporting guideline for population health and policy interventions.
Campbell Mhairi M Katikireddi Srinivasa Vittal SV Hoffmann Tammy T Armstrong Rebecca R Waters Elizabeth E Craig Peter P
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20180516
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionAccurate information on context and implementation of public health interventions is necessary to replicate, adapt, and scale effective interventions and to interpret evaluations. Reporting the context and implementation of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions has been inconsistent and incomplete.MethodsTo improve the reporting of WASH interventions, we developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication for WASH (TIDieR-WASH) checklist and guide, by adapting and expanding the original TIDieR guide. We performed a scoping review of existing implementation reporting guidelines, and of current implementation reporting in WASH evaluations, to develop a list of candidate items to include in this checklist. We then used a 4-stages of review by international experts to reach consensus.ResultsThe resulting 14-item checklist comprises: a) name, b) theory of change, c) prior evidence, d) location and setting, e) context, f) suitability, g) implementers, h) recipients, i) targeting, j) activities, k) intervention dose, l) fidelity, m) costs, and n) materials. Definitions, explanations, examples, and instructions for use are reported in this article.DiscussionThe checklist can be applied to all types of evaluations of WASH interventions, including direct service provision, behavior change, and systems strengthening interventions. We deliberately developed this guidance document to be accessible and relevant to practitioners and researchers. Adoption of this checklist will support transparent reporting of WASH implementation for research and practice. As with other sectors that have used TIDieR checklists, clear implementation reporting can assist with evidence synthesis, adaptation, and policy guidance. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14780.
| S-EPMC11604158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecruiting participants to clinical trials is an ongoing challenge, and relatively little is known about what recruitment strategies lead to better recruitment. Recruitment interventions can be considered complex interventions, often involving multiple components, targeting a variety of groups, and tailoring to different groups. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting checklist (which comprises 12 items recommended for reporting complex interventions) to guide the assessment of how recruitment interventions are described. We aimed to (1) examine to what extent we could identify information about each TIDieR item within recruitment intervention studies, and (2) observe additional detail for each item to describe useful variation among these studies.MethodsWe identified randomized, nested recruitment intervention studies providing recruitment or willingness to participate rates from two sources: a Cochrane review of trials evaluating strategies to improve recruitment to randomized trials, and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls database. First, we assessed to what extent authors reported information about each TIDieR item. Second, we developed descriptive categorical variables for 7 TIDieR items and extracting relevant quotes for the other 5 items.ResultsWe assessed 122 recruitment intervention studies. We were able to extract information relevant to most TIDieR items (e.g., brief rationale, materials, procedure) with the exception of a few items that were only rarely reported (e.g., tailoring, modifications, planned/actual fidelity). The descriptive variables provided a useful overview of study characteristics, with most studies using various forms of informational interventions (55%) delivered at a single time point (90%), often by a member of the research team (59%) in a clinical care setting (41%).ConclusionsOur TIDieR-based variables provide a useful description of the core elements of complex trial recruitment interventions. Recruitment intervention studies report core elements of complex interventions variably; some process elements (e.g., mode of delivery, location) are almost always described, while others (e.g., duration, fidelity) are reported infrequently, with little indication of a reason for their absence. Future research should explore whether these TIDieR-based variables can form the basis of an approach to better reporting of elements of successful recruitment interventions.
| S-EPMC11000410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRehabilitation is a complex biopsychosocial process in which multidisciplinary professionals work in collaboration with a person and their family, with the shared objective of enhancing the person's participation in valued life roles. Hence, rehabilitation is integral to the management of numerous health conditions. However, poor descriptions of rehabilitation interventions, including their essential elements and dosage parameters, pose a significant barrier to their replication in clinical practice. This further limits the synthesis of rehabilitation research and the consequent advancement of the field. The original Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide provides a valuable foundation for reporting but is not specific to rehabilitation. The TIDieR-Rehab checklist, an extension of the original TIDieR, was developed to enhance the reporting of rehabilitation interventions.ObjectiveThis paper presents the TIDieR-Rehab checklist and supplementary manual.MethodsIn accordance with the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network and other relevant guidelines, the TIDieR-Rehab checklist and supplementary manual were developed through a modified Delphi process with individuals with rehabilitation expertise and was guided by an interdisciplinary Steering Committee.ResultsThe TIDieR-Rehab checklist and supplementary manual present seven original, three adapted and 12 new items to enhance the reporting of rehabilitation interventions. New items promote full descriptions of critical aspects of rehabilitation interventions, including the intended study population (Who) and timing of the intervention (When), the planned intervention dosage (How much, How challenging and Regression/Progression), person-centred care (Personalisation) and negative undesired effects (Harms). Explanations and examples of good reporting, provided within the TIDieR-Rehab supplementary manual, provide comprehensive guidance to support users of the checklist.ConclusionsThe TIDieR-Rehab checklist and supplementary manual present a systematic approach to the comprehensive reporting of rehabilitation interventions. The checklist is intended to support replication, evaluation and optimisation of rehabilitation interventions through improved reporting quality.
| S-EPMC11603715 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. METHODS:We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. RESULTS:From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. CONCLUSIONS:The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Not applicable.
| S-EPMC6935471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundQuality reporting contributes to effective translation of health research in practice and policy. As an initial step in the development of a reporting guideline for scaling, the Standards for reporting stUdies of sCaling evidenCEd-informED interventions (SUCCEED), we performed a systematic review to identify relevant guidelines and compile a list of potential items.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review according to Cochrane method guidelines. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, from their respective inceptions. We also searched websites of relevant organizations and Google. We included any document that provided instructions or recommendations, e.g., reporting guideline, checklist, guidance, framework, standard; could inform the design or reporting of scaling interventions; and related to the health sector. We extracted characteristics of the included guidelines and assessed their methodological quality using a 3-item internal validity assessment tool. We extracted all items from the guidelines and classified them according to the main sections of reporting guidelines (title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and other information). We performed a narrative synthesis based on descriptive statistics.ResultsOf 7704 records screened (published between 1999 and 2019), we included 39 guidelines, from which data were extracted from 57 reports. Of the 39 guidelines, 17 were for designing scaling interventions and 22 for reporting implementation interventions. At least one female author was listed in 31 guidelines, and 21 first authors were female. None of the authors belonged to the patient stakeholder group. Only one guideline clearly identified a patient as having participated in the consensus process. More than half the guidelines (56%) had been developed using an evidence-based process. In total, 750 items were extracted from the 39 guidelines and distributed into the 7 main sections.ConclusionRelevant items identified could inform the development of a reporting guideline for scaling studies of evidence-based health interventions. This and our assessment of guidelines could contribute to better reporting in the science and practice of scaling.
| S-EPMC10869056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPlacebo or sham controls are the standard against which the benefits and harms of many active interventions are measured. Whilst the components and the method of their delivery have been shown to affect study outcomes, placebo and sham controls are rarely reported and often not matched to those of the active comparator. This can influence how beneficial or harmful the active intervention appears to be. Without adequate descriptions of placebo or sham controls, it is difficult to interpret results about the benefits and harms of active interventions within placebo-controlled trials. To overcome this problem, we developed a checklist and guide for reporting placebo or sham interventions.Methods and findingsWe developed an initial list of items for the checklist by surveying experts in placebo research (n = 14). Because of the diverse contexts in which placebo or sham treatments are used in clinical research, we consulted experts in trials of drugs, surgery, physiotherapy, acupuncture, and psychological interventions. We then used a multistage online Delphi process with 53 participants to determine which items were deemed to be essential. We next convened a group of experts and stakeholders (n = 16). Our main output was a modification of the existing Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist; this allows the key features of both active interventions and placebo or sham controls to be concisely summarised by researchers. The main differences between TIDieR-Placebo and the original TIDieR are the explicit requirement to describe the setting (i.e., features of the physical environment that go beyond geographic location), the need to report whether blinding was successful (when this was measured), and the need to present the description of placebo components alongside those of the active comparator.ConclusionsWe encourage TIDieR-Placebo to be used alongside TIDieR to assist the reporting of placebo or sham components and the trials in which they are used.
| S-EPMC7505446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Globally, the demand for qualitative research has risen, driven by the health sector's need for in-depth investigation of complex issues behind any phenomenon that may be inadequately comprehended and that other research methods cannot explore, uncover, or describe. The authors aimed to improve the accessibility and comprehensiveness of reporting guidelines for qualitative research. A comprehensive review of scientific articles was conducted on PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and Embase, and it retrieved 1989 articles plus 13 more articles through the snowball method. After screening, 17 key articles were identified, which led to the development of Comprehensive Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research that comprises 14 categories, offering key elements in an organized table. This novel guideline complements the two widely used guidelines, Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research, by including additional aspects like objectives, existing knowledge, rationale behind methodologies, conclusions, recommendations, and reference citations. The study responds to the rising need for improved qualitative research reporting guidelines in global health.
| S-EPMC11353496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.DesignDevelopment of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement.ParticipantsCore team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist.SettingInternational consensus.InterventionFour stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline.ResultsFrom the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews.ConclusionsPRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.
| S-EPMC9361065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesRehabilitation is essential for supporting the recovery from, and management of, a range of health conditions. However, interventions are often poorly reported in rehabilitation research, hindering advancement of the field. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to enhance the reporting of interventions, but does not specifically address the complexities and multifaceted nature of rehabilitation interventions. This study aimed to develop an extension of the TIDieR checklist to support better reporting of rehabilitation interventions.DesignA modified Delphi study overseen by a Steering Committee.SettingOnline.ParticipantsRehabilitation experts were purposively sampled for diversity in discipline, practice setting, area of expertise and geographical location.MethodsParticipants (n=35) provided both quantitative and qualitative feedback on drafts of the TIDieR-Rehab through online surveys. Quantitative data was descriptively analysed by percentage of agreement, while qualitative data was analysed using conventional content analysis. Quantitative and qualitative findings were subsequently triangulated to facilitate iterative refinement of the TIDieR-Rehab.ResultsConsensus was achieved after two rounds of the modified Delphi process. The TIDieR-Rehab checklist comprises seven original, three adapted and 12 new reporting items, and is supported by a supplementary manual. Specific enhancements include more detailed descriptions of the study population (Who) and timing of the intervention (When), the planned intervention dosage (How much, How challenging and Regression/Progression), person-centred care (Personalisation) and negative undesired effects (Harms) which were considered critical for the comprehensive reporting of rehabilitation interventions.ConclusionThe TIDieR-Rehab checklist marks a significant advancement in enhancing and standardising the reporting of rehabilitation interventions. By offering a structured format for detailing complex rehabilitation interventions, the TIDieR-Rehab supports improvements in reporting quality to promote research replication and support the translation of research findings into clinical practice. Future research should validate the TIDieR-Rehab checklist across a variety of intervention types and clinical contexts.
| S-EPMC11603707 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3001530 | biostudies-literature