Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/97565
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Development, inter-rater reliability and feasibility of a checklist to assess implementation (Ch-IMP) in systematic reviews: the case of provider-based prevention and treatment programs targeting children and youth
Author: Cargo, M.
Stankov, I.
Thomas, J.
Saini, M.
Rogers, P.
Mayo-Wilson, E.
Hannes, K.
Citation: BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2015; 15(1):73-1-73-18
Publisher: BioMed Central
Issue Date: 2015
ISSN: 1471-2288
1471-2288
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Margaret Cargo, Ivana Stankov, James Thomas, Michael Saini, Patricia Rogers, Evan Mayo-Wilson, and Karin Hannes
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Several papers report deficiencies in the reporting of information about the implementation of interventions in clinical trials. Information about implementation is also required in systematic reviews of complex interventions to facilitate the translation and uptake of evidence of provider-based prevention and treatment programs. To capture whether and how implementation is assessed within systematic effectiveness reviews, we developed a checklist for implementation (Ch-IMP) and piloted it in a cohort of reviews on provider-based prevention and treatment interventions for children and young people. This paper reports on the inter-rater reliability, feasibility and reasons for discrepant ratings. METHODS: Checklist domains were informed by a framework for program theory; items within domains were generated from a literature review. The checklist was pilot-tested on a cohort of 27 effectiveness reviews targeting children and youth. Two raters independently extracted information on 47 items. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using percentage agreement and unweighted kappa coefficients. Reasons for discrepant ratings were content analysed. RESULTS: Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.37 to 1.00 and were not influenced by one-sided bias. Most kappa values were classified as excellent (n = 20) or good (n = 17) with a few items categorised as fair (n = 7) or poor (n = 1). Prevalence-adjusted kappa coefficients indicate good or excellent agreement for all but one item. Four areas contributed to scoring discrepancies: 1) clarity or sufficiency of information provided in the review; 2) information missed in the review; 3) issues encountered with the tool; and 4) issues encountered at the review level. Use of the tool demands time investment and it requires adjustment to improve its feasibility for wider use. CONCLUSIONS: The case of provider-based prevention and treatment interventions showed relevancy in developing and piloting the Ch-IMP as a useful tool for assessing the extent to which systematic reviews assess the quality of implementation. The checklist could be used by authors and editors to improve the quality of systematic reviews, and shows promise as a pedagogical tool to facilitate the extraction and reporting of implementation characteristics.
Keywords: Complex interventions; Children and youth; Provider-based interventions; Systematic reviews; Process evaluation; Implementation; Theory-driven reviews; Checklist development
Rights: © 2015 Cargo et al. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
RMID: 0030040525
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-015-0037-7
Appears in Collections:Public Health publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
hdl_97565.pdfPublished version1.63 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.