The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Shannon D Scott - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the workgroup for intervention development and Evaluation Research wider recommendations
Implementation Science, 2013Co-Authors: Lauren Albrecht, Mandy M Archibald, Danielle Arseneau, Shannon D ScottAbstract:Background: Influenced by an important paper by Michie et al., outlining the rationale and requirements for detailed reporting of behavior change interventions now required by Implementation Science, we created and refined a checklist to operationalize the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations in systematic reviews. The WIDER recommendations provide a framework to identify and provide detailed reporting of the essential components of behavior change interventions in order to facilitate replication, further development, and scale-up of the interventions. Findings: The checklist was developed, applied, and improved over the course of four systematic reviews of knowledge translation (KT) strategies in a variety of healthcare settings conducted by Scott and associates. The checklist was created as one method of operationalizing the work of the WIDER in order to facilitate comparison across heterogeneous studies included in these systematic reviews. Numerous challenges were encountered in the process of creating and applying the checklist across four stages of development. The resulting improvements have produced a ‘user-friendly’ and replicable checklist to assess the quality of reporting of KT interventions in systematic reviews using the WIDER recommendations. Conclusions: With journals, such as Implementation Science, using the WIDER recommendations as publication requirements for Evaluation reports of behavior change intervention studies, it is crucial to find methods of examining, measuring, and reporting the quality of reporting. This checklist is one approach to operationalize the WIDER recommendations in systematic review methodology.
-
development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the workgroup for intervention development and Evaluation Research wider recommendations
Implementation Science, 2013Co-Authors: Lauren Albrecht, Mandy M Archibald, Danielle Arseneau, Shannon D ScottAbstract:Background: Influenced by an important paper by Michie et al., outlining the rationale and requirements for detailed reporting of behavior change interventions now required by Implementation Science, we created and refined a checklist to operationalize the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations in systematic reviews. The WIDER recommendations provide a framework to identify and provide detailed reporting of the essential components of behavior change interventions in order to facilitate replication, further development, and scale-up of the interventions. Findings: The checklist was developed, applied, and improved over the course of four systematic reviews of knowledge translation (KT) strategies in a variety of healthcare settings conducted by Scott and associates. The checklist was created as one method of operationalizing the work of the WIDER in order to facilitate comparison across heterogeneous studies included in these systematic reviews. Numerous challenges were encountered in the process of creating and applying the checklist across four stages of development. The resulting improvements have produced a ‘user-friendly’ and replicable checklist to assess the quality of reporting of KT interventions in systematic reviews using the WIDER recommendations. Conclusions: With journals, such as Implementation Science, using the WIDER recommendations as publication requirements for Evaluation reports of behavior change intervention studies, it is crucial to find methods of examining, measuring, and reporting the quality of reporting. This checklist is one approach to operationalize the WIDER recommendations in systematic review methodology.
Lauren Albrecht - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the workgroup for intervention development and Evaluation Research wider recommendations
Implementation Science, 2013Co-Authors: Lauren Albrecht, Mandy M Archibald, Danielle Arseneau, Shannon D ScottAbstract:Background: Influenced by an important paper by Michie et al., outlining the rationale and requirements for detailed reporting of behavior change interventions now required by Implementation Science, we created and refined a checklist to operationalize the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations in systematic reviews. The WIDER recommendations provide a framework to identify and provide detailed reporting of the essential components of behavior change interventions in order to facilitate replication, further development, and scale-up of the interventions. Findings: The checklist was developed, applied, and improved over the course of four systematic reviews of knowledge translation (KT) strategies in a variety of healthcare settings conducted by Scott and associates. The checklist was created as one method of operationalizing the work of the WIDER in order to facilitate comparison across heterogeneous studies included in these systematic reviews. Numerous challenges were encountered in the process of creating and applying the checklist across four stages of development. The resulting improvements have produced a ‘user-friendly’ and replicable checklist to assess the quality of reporting of KT interventions in systematic reviews using the WIDER recommendations. Conclusions: With journals, such as Implementation Science, using the WIDER recommendations as publication requirements for Evaluation reports of behavior change intervention studies, it is crucial to find methods of examining, measuring, and reporting the quality of reporting. This checklist is one approach to operationalize the WIDER recommendations in systematic review methodology.
-
development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the workgroup for intervention development and Evaluation Research wider recommendations
Implementation Science, 2013Co-Authors: Lauren Albrecht, Mandy M Archibald, Danielle Arseneau, Shannon D ScottAbstract:Background: Influenced by an important paper by Michie et al., outlining the rationale and requirements for detailed reporting of behavior change interventions now required by Implementation Science, we created and refined a checklist to operationalize the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations in systematic reviews. The WIDER recommendations provide a framework to identify and provide detailed reporting of the essential components of behavior change interventions in order to facilitate replication, further development, and scale-up of the interventions. Findings: The checklist was developed, applied, and improved over the course of four systematic reviews of knowledge translation (KT) strategies in a variety of healthcare settings conducted by Scott and associates. The checklist was created as one method of operationalizing the work of the WIDER in order to facilitate comparison across heterogeneous studies included in these systematic reviews. Numerous challenges were encountered in the process of creating and applying the checklist across four stages of development. The resulting improvements have produced a ‘user-friendly’ and replicable checklist to assess the quality of reporting of KT interventions in systematic reviews using the WIDER recommendations. Conclusions: With journals, such as Implementation Science, using the WIDER recommendations as publication requirements for Evaluation reports of behavior change intervention studies, it is crucial to find methods of examining, measuring, and reporting the quality of reporting. This checklist is one approach to operationalize the WIDER recommendations in systematic review methodology.
Mandy M Archibald - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the workgroup for intervention development and Evaluation Research wider recommendations
Implementation Science, 2013Co-Authors: Lauren Albrecht, Mandy M Archibald, Danielle Arseneau, Shannon D ScottAbstract:Background: Influenced by an important paper by Michie et al., outlining the rationale and requirements for detailed reporting of behavior change interventions now required by Implementation Science, we created and refined a checklist to operationalize the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations in systematic reviews. The WIDER recommendations provide a framework to identify and provide detailed reporting of the essential components of behavior change interventions in order to facilitate replication, further development, and scale-up of the interventions. Findings: The checklist was developed, applied, and improved over the course of four systematic reviews of knowledge translation (KT) strategies in a variety of healthcare settings conducted by Scott and associates. The checklist was created as one method of operationalizing the work of the WIDER in order to facilitate comparison across heterogeneous studies included in these systematic reviews. Numerous challenges were encountered in the process of creating and applying the checklist across four stages of development. The resulting improvements have produced a ‘user-friendly’ and replicable checklist to assess the quality of reporting of KT interventions in systematic reviews using the WIDER recommendations. Conclusions: With journals, such as Implementation Science, using the WIDER recommendations as publication requirements for Evaluation reports of behavior change intervention studies, it is crucial to find methods of examining, measuring, and reporting the quality of reporting. This checklist is one approach to operationalize the WIDER recommendations in systematic review methodology.
-
development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the workgroup for intervention development and Evaluation Research wider recommendations
Implementation Science, 2013Co-Authors: Lauren Albrecht, Mandy M Archibald, Danielle Arseneau, Shannon D ScottAbstract:Background: Influenced by an important paper by Michie et al., outlining the rationale and requirements for detailed reporting of behavior change interventions now required by Implementation Science, we created and refined a checklist to operationalize the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations in systematic reviews. The WIDER recommendations provide a framework to identify and provide detailed reporting of the essential components of behavior change interventions in order to facilitate replication, further development, and scale-up of the interventions. Findings: The checklist was developed, applied, and improved over the course of four systematic reviews of knowledge translation (KT) strategies in a variety of healthcare settings conducted by Scott and associates. The checklist was created as one method of operationalizing the work of the WIDER in order to facilitate comparison across heterogeneous studies included in these systematic reviews. Numerous challenges were encountered in the process of creating and applying the checklist across four stages of development. The resulting improvements have produced a ‘user-friendly’ and replicable checklist to assess the quality of reporting of KT interventions in systematic reviews using the WIDER recommendations. Conclusions: With journals, such as Implementation Science, using the WIDER recommendations as publication requirements for Evaluation reports of behavior change intervention studies, it is crucial to find methods of examining, measuring, and reporting the quality of reporting. This checklist is one approach to operationalize the WIDER recommendations in systematic review methodology.
Danielle Arseneau - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the workgroup for intervention development and Evaluation Research wider recommendations
Implementation Science, 2013Co-Authors: Lauren Albrecht, Mandy M Archibald, Danielle Arseneau, Shannon D ScottAbstract:Background: Influenced by an important paper by Michie et al., outlining the rationale and requirements for detailed reporting of behavior change interventions now required by Implementation Science, we created and refined a checklist to operationalize the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations in systematic reviews. The WIDER recommendations provide a framework to identify and provide detailed reporting of the essential components of behavior change interventions in order to facilitate replication, further development, and scale-up of the interventions. Findings: The checklist was developed, applied, and improved over the course of four systematic reviews of knowledge translation (KT) strategies in a variety of healthcare settings conducted by Scott and associates. The checklist was created as one method of operationalizing the work of the WIDER in order to facilitate comparison across heterogeneous studies included in these systematic reviews. Numerous challenges were encountered in the process of creating and applying the checklist across four stages of development. The resulting improvements have produced a ‘user-friendly’ and replicable checklist to assess the quality of reporting of KT interventions in systematic reviews using the WIDER recommendations. Conclusions: With journals, such as Implementation Science, using the WIDER recommendations as publication requirements for Evaluation reports of behavior change intervention studies, it is crucial to find methods of examining, measuring, and reporting the quality of reporting. This checklist is one approach to operationalize the WIDER recommendations in systematic review methodology.
-
development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the workgroup for intervention development and Evaluation Research wider recommendations
Implementation Science, 2013Co-Authors: Lauren Albrecht, Mandy M Archibald, Danielle Arseneau, Shannon D ScottAbstract:Background: Influenced by an important paper by Michie et al., outlining the rationale and requirements for detailed reporting of behavior change interventions now required by Implementation Science, we created and refined a checklist to operationalize the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations in systematic reviews. The WIDER recommendations provide a framework to identify and provide detailed reporting of the essential components of behavior change interventions in order to facilitate replication, further development, and scale-up of the interventions. Findings: The checklist was developed, applied, and improved over the course of four systematic reviews of knowledge translation (KT) strategies in a variety of healthcare settings conducted by Scott and associates. The checklist was created as one method of operationalizing the work of the WIDER in order to facilitate comparison across heterogeneous studies included in these systematic reviews. Numerous challenges were encountered in the process of creating and applying the checklist across four stages of development. The resulting improvements have produced a ‘user-friendly’ and replicable checklist to assess the quality of reporting of KT interventions in systematic reviews using the WIDER recommendations. Conclusions: With journals, such as Implementation Science, using the WIDER recommendations as publication requirements for Evaluation reports of behavior change intervention studies, it is crucial to find methods of examining, measuring, and reporting the quality of reporting. This checklist is one approach to operationalize the WIDER recommendations in systematic review methodology.
John Kelly - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
protocol for a systematic review of Evaluation Research for adults who have participated in the smart recovery mutual support programme
BMJ Open, 2016Co-Authors: Alison K Beck, Amanda Baker, Peter J Kelly, Frank P Deane, Anthony Shakeshaft, David Hunt, Erin Forbes, John KellyAbstract:Introduction Self-Management and Recovery Training (SMART Recovery) offers an alternative to predominant 12-step approaches to mutual aid (eg, alcoholics anonymous). Although the principles (eg, self-efficacy) and therapeutic approaches (eg, motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy) of SMART Recovery are evidence based, further clarity regarding the direct evidence of its effectiveness as a mutual aid package is needed. Relative to methodologically rigorous reviews supporting the efficacy of 12-step approaches, to date, reviews of SMART Recovery have been descriptive. We aim to address this gap by providing a comprehensive overview of the evidence for SMART Recovery in adults with problematic alcohol, substance and/or behavioural addiction, including a commentary on outcomes assessed, potential mediators, feasibility (including economic outcomes) and a critical Evaluation of the methods used. Methods and analysis Methods are informed by the Cochrane Guidelines for Systematic Reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. 6 electronic peer-reviewed and 4 grey literature databases have been identified. Preliminary searches have been conducted for SMART Recovery literature (liberal inclusion criteria, not restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), qualitative-only designs excluded). Eligible ‘Evaluation’ articles will be assessed against standardised criteria and checked by an independent assessor. The searches will be re-run just before final analyses and further studies retrieved for inclusion. A narrative synthesis of the findings will be reported, structured around intervention type and content, population characteristics, and outcomes. Where possible, ‘summary of findings’ tables will be generated for each comparison. When data are available, we will calculate a risk ratio and its 95% CI (dichotomous outcomes) and/or effect size according to Cohen's formula (continuous outcomes) for the primary outcome of each trial. Ethics and dissemination No ethical issues are foreseen. Findings will be disseminated widely to clinicians and Researchers via journal publication and conference presentation(s). Prospero registration number CRD42015025574.
