EVIDENCE BASED PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY AND PRACTICE

Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health research

J Doyle¹, E Waters², D Yach³, D McQueen⁴, A De Francisco⁵, T Stewart⁶, P Reddy⁷, A M Gulmezoglu⁸, G Galea⁹ and A Portela¹⁰

¹ Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field, USA
² Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field and Social Development, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia
³ Non-communicable diseases and Mental Health, WHO, Switzerland
⁴ Global Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Scientific and Technical Development, International Union of Health Promotion and Education, USA
⁵ Global Forum for Health Research, Switzerland
⁶ International Health Unit, MacFarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health, Australia
⁷ Health Promotion Research and Development Group, Medical Research Council of South Africa
⁸ WHO Reproductive Health Library, HRP - UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, WHO, Switzerland
⁹ WHO Office for Western Pacific in Manila, Philippines
¹⁰ The Making Pregnancy Safer initiative, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Switzerland

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Professor E Waters
School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Vic 3125, Melbourne, Australia; elizabeth.waters{at}deakin.edu.au

Background: Systematic reviews of health promotion and public health interventions are increasingly being conducted to assist public policy decision making. Many intra-country initiatives have been established to conduct systematic reviews in their relevant public health areas. The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organisation established to conduct and publish systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, is committed to high quality reviews that are regularly updated, published electronically, and meeting the needs of the consumers.

Aims: To identify global priorities for Cochrane systematic reviews of public health topics.

Methods: Systematic reviews of public health interventions were identified and mapped against global health risks. Global health organisations were engaged and nominated policy-urgent titles, evidence based selection criteria were applied to set priorities.

Results: 26 priority systematic review titles were identified, addressing interventions such as community building activities, pre-natal and early infancy psychosocial outcomes, and improving the nutrition status of refugee and displaced populations.

Discussion: The 26 priority titles provide an opportunity for potential reviewers and indeed, the Cochrane Collaboration as a whole, to address the previously unmet needs of global health policy and research agencies.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Values, rights, responsibilities, and public health—Oh yes, and avoid fornication!

Carlos Alvarez-Dardet and John R Ashton
J Epidemiol Community Health 2005 59: 177. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Lumbreras, B., Hernandez-Aguado, I. (2007). Sharing hypotheses and ideas in public health research: contributing to the research agenda. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 61: 2-4 [Full Text]  
• Armstrong, R., Waters, E., Roberts, H., Oliver, S., Popay, J. (2006). The role and theoretical evolution of knowledge translation and exchange in public health. J Public Health (Oxf) 28: 384-389 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Jamieson, L. (2006). Using qualitative methodology to elucidate themes for a traditional tooth gauging education tool for use in a remote Ugandan community. Health Educ Res 21: 477-487 [Abstract] [Full Text]