Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Grading of evidence of the effectiveness of health promotion interventions
  1. K-C Tang1,
  2. B C K Choi2,
  3. R Beaglehole1
  1. 1
    Department of Chronic Diseases and Health Promotion, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
  2. 2
    Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada
  1. Dr K-C Tang, Department of Chronic Diseases and Health Promotion, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; tangkc{at}who.int

Abstract

Aims: Grading of evidence of the effectiveness of health promotion interventions remains a priority to the practise of evidence-based health promotion. Several authors propose grading the strength of evidence based on a hierarchy: convincing, probable, possible and insufficient; or strong, moderate, limited and no evidence. Although these grading hierarchies provide simple and straightforward rankings, the terms that describe the categories in the hierarchies, however, do not explain, in an explicit manner, in what way the strength of the evidence in one category is more, or less, superior than that in another.

Methods: To enhance the explanatory power of the hierarchy, we propose that evidence be classified into three grades, each with a short explanatory note on the basis of three criteria: the degree of association between the intervention under study and the outcome factors, the consistency of the findings from different studies, and whether there is a known cause–effect mechanism for the intervention under study and the outcome factors.

Conclusion: For more in-depth grading, a three-grade expanded hierarchy is also recommended. Examples are given to illustrate our proposed grading schemes.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None.

Linked Articles

  • In this issue
    Mauricio L Barreto