Search

In identifying appropriate strategies for effective use of preventive services for particular settings or populations, public health practitioners employ a systematic approach to evaluating the literature. Behavioral intervention studies that focus on prevention, however, pose special challenges for these traditional methods. Tools for synthesizing evidence on preventive interventions can improve public health practice. The authors developed a literature abstraction tool and a classification for preventive interventions. They incorporated the tool into a PC-based relational database and user-friendly evidence reporting system, then tested the system by reviewing behavioral interventions for hypertension management. They performed a structured literature search and reviewed 100 studies on behavioral interventions for hypertension management. They abstracted information using the abstraction tool and classified important elements of interventions for comparison across studies. The authors found that many studies in their pilot project did not report sufficient information to allow for complete evaluation, comparison across studies, or replication of the intervention. They propose that studies reporting on preventive interventions should (a) categorize interventions into discrete components; (b) report sufficient participant information; and (c) report characteristics such as intervention leaders, timing, and setting so that public health professionals can compare and select the most appropriate interventions.

Background: The diverse nature of the target audience (i.e., public health decision-makers) for the Guide to Community Preventive Services: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations (the Guide) dictates that it must be broad in scope. In addition, for the Guide to be most useful for its target audience, its organization and format must be carefully considered., Determining the Scope of the Guide: Healthy People objectives and actual causes of death were used to determine the contents of the Guide. A priority setting exercise resulted in the selection of 15 topics for systematic reviews using the following criteria: burden of the problem, preventability, relationship to other public health initiatives, usefulness of the package of topics selected and level of current research and intervention activity in public and private sectors. Interventions within each topic target state and local levels and include population-based strategies, individual strategies in other than clinical settings and group strategies., Organization of the Guide: The Guide is organized into: Introduction, Reviews and Recommendations (three sections: Changing Risk Behaviors, Reducing Diseases, Injuries, or Impairments, and Addressing Environmental and Ecosystem Challenges), Appendixes, and Indexes., Discussion: The scope and organization of the Guide were determined using relevant public health criteria and expert opinion to provide a useful and accessible document to a broad target audience. While the final contents of the Guide may change during development, the working table of contents described in this paper provides a framework for development of the Guide and conveys its scope and intention.

When the GUIDE TO COMMUNITY PREVENTIVE SERVICES: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations (the Guide) is published in 2001, it will represent a significant national effort in encouraging evidence-based public health practice in defined populations (e.g., communities or members of specific managed care plans). The Guide will make recommendations regarding public health interventions to reduce illness, disability, premature death, and environmental hazards that impair community health and quality of life. The Guide is being developed under the guidance of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force)-a 15-member, nonfederal, independent panel of experts. Subject matter experts, methodologists, and scientific staff are supporting the Task Force in using explicit rules to conduct systematic literature reviews of evidence of effectiveness, economic efficiency, and feasibility on which to base recommendations for community action. Contributors to the Guide are building on the experience of others to confront methodologic challenges unique to the assessment of complex multicomponent intervention studies with nonexperimental or nonrandomized designs and diverse measures of outcome and effectiveness. Persons who plan, fund, and implement population-based services and policies to improve health at the state and local levels are invited to scrutinize the work in progress and to communicate with contributors. When the Guide is complete, readers are encouraged to consider critically the value and relevance of its contents, the implementation of interventions the Task Force recommends, the abandonment of interventions the Task Force does not recommend, and the need for rigorous evaluation of the benefits and harms of promising interventions of unknown effectiveness.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's "Guide to Clinical Preventive Services" summarizes the results of a critical review of the literature pertaining to the effectiveness of 169 interventions in modifying 60 risk factors or conditions. The ultimate impact of the guide depends on the diffusion into clinical practice of its recommendations. This report reviews the factors influencing the diffusion process. Three categories of behavioral influence--predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors--apply to this diffusion process. Predisposing factors include knowledge and attitudes, personal health behaviors, confidence, and beliefs about patients' interests in health-promotion advice. Enabling factors include competence to perform preventive services, reimbursement for preventive services, organization of the practice setting, time to provide preventive services, a reminder system, and a coherent set of guidelines that are perceived as scientific and unambiguous. Reinforcing factors include peer support, feedback, evidence of results, and an enhanced sense of self-efficacy in fulfilling one's role as a healer. Recommendations are given for using these factors to increase the diffusion of preventive services into clinical practice.