Integrating research and action: a systematic review of community-based participatory research to address health disparities in environmental and occupational health in the USA

W K Cook

doi:10.1136/jech.2007.067645

Responses

Review

Integrating research and action: a systematic review of community-based participatory research to address health disparities in environmental and occupational health in the USA

Compose a Response to This Article

Compose Response

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

PLEASE NOTE:

A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.

I agree to and have read the terms and conditions for rapid responses and BMJ Privacy Notice *

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

When is a review systematic? Comments on the Cook “systematic” review (JECH, 2008, 62: 668-676)
Clare Bambra
Published on: 27 April 2016

Published on: 27 April 2016
When is a review systematic? Comments on the Cook “systematic” review (JECH, 2008, 62: 668-676)
- Clare Bambra, Lecturer in Public Health Policy
Dear Editor
Whilst not disputing the originality of the review of community-based participatory research by Cook, and published in the August 2008 edition of JECH, it does raise questions about what the agreed minimum methodological requirements are for JECH to describe a review as “systematic”.[1]
Specifically, the Cook review meets none of the criteria which are widely considered to differentiate systemati...
Show More

Dear Editor
Whilst not disputing the originality of the review of community-based participatory research by Cook, and published in the August 2008 edition of JECH, it does raise questions about what the agreed minimum methodological requirements are for JECH to describe a review as “systematic”.[1]
Specifically, the Cook review meets none of the criteria which are widely considered to differentiate systematic reviews (SRs) from traditional literature reviews (Table 1).[2] Most notably, the Cook study employed a very minimalist search strategy not least as in terms of the electronic searches, only MEDLINE was searched. This is widely considered as inadequate for SRs, particularly public health ones, as many relevant studies are missed.[3, 4] Further, citation follow-ups, hand searching and author contact, all considered important aspects of a sound SR search strategy, are absent.[2, 5] Clear descriptions of study inclusion, data extraction and quality appraisal were similarly lacking. Indeed, quality appraisal seems limited to a description of the various study designs employed by the included studies. No quality appraisal criteria are presented. As table 1 demonstrates, transparency is lacking in many other aspects of the review methodology and it is unclear why studies are included (or indeed excluded). In addition, there is only one author of the review (Cook). This is very rare for a SR, as having a second reviewer to independently check judgements is an important component of the rigour of SRs – minimising bias and enhancing reproducibility. [2, 5] Indeed all other SRs published in JECH since 2000 have had more than two reviewers.
It is therefore highly misleading to describe the Cook literature review as a “systematic” review.[1] Doing so within the pages of JECH undermines the extensive efforts (time, cost, management) put in by actual SR teams, ignores the evidence of the benefits of taking a systematic approach to evidence synthesis,[2-5] and brushes aside the extensive guidelines developed about the good conduct of SRs.[5] The essential methodological elements of SRs (transparency, rigour, reproducibility, quality appraisal), not only differentiate them from traditional reviews, but they are also what gives SRs their high status within the hierarchy of evidence and makes them such a valuable source of research evidence. The Cook review lacks the methodological rigour which characterises a SR and cannot be fairly described as such: it is a traditional literature review and JECH readers should re-consider its findings in this context.
Clare Bambra
References
1. Cook, WK. Integrating research and action: a systematic review of community-based participatory research to address health disparities in environmental and occupational health in the USA. J Epidemiol Comm Heal. 2008, 62: 668-676.
2. Petticrew, M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. Brit Med J. 2001, 322;98-101.
3. Suarez-Almazor, ME., Belseck, E., Homik, J., et al. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials 2000, 21: 476.87.
4. Ogilivie, D., Hamilton, V., Egan, M., et al Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: How far should you go? J Epidemiol Comm Heal. 2005, 59: 804-808.
5. Higgins, JPT., Green, S. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention Studies (v5.0). 2008. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/ [accessed 20/08/08]
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top

Main menu

Plain text

PLEASE NOTE:

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

Log in using your username and password

Main menu

Log in using your username and password

You are here

Plain text

PLEASE NOTE:

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Log in using your username and password