Discrepancies in Ratings of Behavioral Healthcare Interventions Among Evidence-Based Program Resources Websites.
Discrepancies in Ratings of Behavioral Healthcare Interventions Among Evidence-Based Program Resources Websites.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/00469580231186836
复制
发表时间：
2023-01
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Magura, Stephen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee-Easton, Miranda Jade;Magura, Stephen
行为健康学科的决策者可以从工具中受益，以帮助他们确定和实施循证干预措施。一个工具是循证方案资源网站（EBPR）。先前的研究表明，当多个EBPR对一项干预措施进行评级时，他们可能不同意。关于这种冲突的原因，以前的研究很少。本研究探讨如何EBPR率干预措施和EBPR之间的分歧的来源时，评级相同的干预措施。本研究假设，EBPR可能不同意干预评级，因为他们要么使用不同的评级范式，要么使用不同的研究作为干预有效性的证据（或两者兼而有之）。本研究确定了15个EBPR纳入。1名提交人（M.J.L.E.）对EBPR进行了编码，每个EBPR用于对行为健康干预进行分类的“证据层”以及他们在对干预进行评级时使用的标准。然后，作者计算了一个Jaccard相似性指数，用于共同评估干预措施的每对EBPR之间共享的标准，以及一个用于EBPR评级对在对同一项目进行评级时使用的研究。作者使用卡方、相关性和二元逻辑回归分析的组合来分析数据。两个EBPR之间共有的科克伦偏倚风险标准的数量与这两个EBPR同意干预评级的可能性之间存在统计学显著负相关（r =-0.12，P ≤ 0.01）。由2个EBPR评价的研究数量与这些EBPR同意干预评级的可能性之间没有关系。在这项研究中，EBPR对同一干预措施的评级存在分歧的主要原因是EBPR使用的评级标准不同。EBPR用于评估项目的研究似乎没有影响。
Decision makers in the behavioral health disciplines could benefit from tools to assist them in identifying and implementing evidence-based interventions. One tool is an evidence-based program resources website (EBPR). Prior studies documented that when multiple EBPRs rate an intervention, they may disagree. Prior research concerning the reason for such conflicts is sparse. The present study examines how EBPRs rate interventions and the sources of disagreement between EBPRs when rating the same intervention. This study hypothesizes that EBPRs may disagree about intervention ratings because they either use different rating paradigms or they use different studies as evidence of intervention effectiveness (or both). This study identified 15 EBPRs for inclusion. One author (M.J.L.E.) coded the EBPRs for which “tiers of evidence” each EBPR used to classify behavioral health interventions and which criteria they used when rating interventions. The author then computed one Jaccard index of similarity for the criteria shared between each pair of EBPRs that co-rated interventions, and one for the studies used by EBPR rating pairs when rating the same program. The authors used a combination of chi-square, correlation, and binary logistic regression analyses to analyze the data. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between the number of Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria shared between 2 EBPRs and the likelihood of those 2 EBPRs agreeing on an intervention rating (r = −.12, P ≤ .01). There was no relationship between the number of studies evaluated by 2 EBPRs and the likelihood of those EBPRs agreeing on an intervention rating. The major reason for disagreements between EBPRs when rating the same intervention in this study was due to differences in the rating criteria used by the EBPRs. The studies used by the EBPRs to rate programs does not appear to have an impact.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1177/00469580221126295
发表时间：
2022-01
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Lee-Easton, Miranda J.;Magura, Stephen;Maranda, Michael J.
通讯作者：
Maranda, Michael J.
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal;Egan, Matt;Petticrew, Mark
通讯作者：
Petticrew, Mark
影响因子：
2.2
作者：
Mills, Edward J.;Ayers, Dieter;Thorlund, Kristian
通讯作者：
Thorlund, Kristian
影响因子：
2
作者：
Conn, VS;Rantz, MJ
通讯作者：
Rantz, MJ
影响因子：
39.2
作者：
Savovic, Jelena;Jones, Hayley E.;Sterne, Jonathan A. C.
通讯作者：
Sterne, Jonathan A. C.