Methodologies for Evaluating and Grading Evidence Considerations for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief (2019) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Methodologies for Evaluating and Grading Evidence: Considerations for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response: Proceedings of a Workshop - in Brief
Methodologies for Evaluating and Grading Evidence: Considerations for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response: Proceedings of a Workshop - in Brief
Pages 1-9
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
The first panel of experts from the fields of public health, medicine, transportation, education, and labor was assembled to assist the committee in gathering information regarding what can be learned and potentially adapted from existing evidence-grading frameworks and criteria that can be used to assess the strength of evidence and inform practice recommendations. Following the first workshop session, the initial presenters were joined by a second panel with additional experts from the fields of international development, aerospace medicine, and aviation safety to help the committee further explore how evidence generated from sources other than traditional research studies, including mechanistic evidence, modeling, expert judgment, case studies, and after action reports (AARs)
|
From page 2... ...
Countermeasures That Work guidance publication, which was designed to assist state highway officials with the selection of evidence-based countermeasures to reduce traffic safety problems. Presentations during the first panel session focused on describing each of the evaluation frameworks and the criteria (or domains)
|
From page 3... ...
. Qualitative evidence synthesis, she said, can answer questions about intervention heterogeneity, acceptability, feasibility, reach, and implementation, and it may also inform reviews of intervention effectiveness by, for example, helping to identify important outcomes.
|
From page 4... ...
Noyes suggested that there are a number of tools and emerging research methods that may help reviewers better understand the effects of context on outcomes, including a technique called qualitative comparative analysis and the intervention complexity assessment tool for systematic reviews, which, she said, can help reviewers explore heterogeneity and inform subgroup analyses (Lewin et al., 2017)
|
From page 5... ...
INCORPORATING EVIDENCE FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN TRADITIONAL RESEARCH STUDIES INTO EVIDENCE REVIEW AND GRADING PROCESSES A recurring discussion throughout the workshop focused on how the various frameworks and methods for evidence synthesis and recommendation development would handle some types of evidence that may be important sources of information in PHEPR but are less commonly used in evidence reviews, including mechanistic evidence (i.e., a logical or conceptual rationale for why or how an intervention works) ,21 modeling, expert opinion, case studies, and AARs.
|
From page 6... ...
However, certainty in such evidence would be reduced as compared to direct evidence. He referenced work being done on incorporating mechanistic evidence into reviews related to toxicology and a National Academies workshop on this topic.23 Valentine noted that the WWC Practice Guides enable a review panel of nationally recognized experts to make recommendations based on its own expert judgment when there is only low-quality evidence or even in the absence of empirical evidence if, for example, there are theoretical considerations.
|
From page 7... ...
Mechanistic evidence and logic have a strong role as investigators use a ruling-out and ruling-in process to come to a conclusion about the probable cause of the accident and, Marcus explained, develop recommendations needed to address it and other identified safety issues. Bishop added that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
|
From page 8... ...
2018. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: Introduction to the series.
|
From page 9... ...
REVIEWERS: To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop -- in Brief was reviewed by Jennifer Bishop, National Transportation Safety Board and Jeffrey Valentine, University of Louisville. Lauren Shern, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, served as the review coordinator.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.