Background
Interventions for communication and participation
Overviews of the effects of interventions for communication and participation
Developments in the science of synthesis and meta-synthesis
Methods and results
Data integration tables: Development and production
Description of main review characteristics and the data extracted from reviews for each characteristic | |
---|---|
Aim
| Adapted from review objectives. |
Scope – Study design, Participants, Interventions, Comparison arms, Outcomes
| Adapted from review selection criteria; the number and type of studies and participant numbers included were also extracted. |
Number and types of studies
| |
Number of participants
| |
Analysis
| Indicates whether meta-analysis and/or narrative data analysis was performed. |
Setting
| Country and predominant settings in which included studies were conducted and interventions delivered. |
Recipient
| Adapted from the Consumers and Communication Review Group scope, which groups reviews via direction of the communication processes (e.g. to the consumer; from the consumer; between provider and consumer; between consumers), so describing both the primary intervention recipient and the major direction of communication processes. |
Provider
| Who delivered the intervention to the recipient. Also describes important characteristics such as experience or training required to deliver the intervention. |
Format
| The predominant delivery format(s) of the intervention. May also include important characteristics such as frequency, intensity or delivery to individuals or groups. |
Quality
| Quality of included studies: summary based on review authors' criteria used to rate included study quality and authors' assessment of included study quality. |
Quality of the review: based on AMSTAR; includes the overall quality score and summary of criteria that review methods failed to meet. | |
Authors' conclusions
| Authors' conclusions added as a composite of points raised in the Discussion and Implications (for practice, for research) sections of the Cochrane review. |
SUMMARY STATEMENT | TRANSLATION CRITERIA |
---|---|
Sufficient evidence from trials
| Evidence sufficiently certain to support conclusions about the effect of the intervention(s) in relation to a specific outcome(s). This includes evidence of an effect in terms of (i) benefit or (ii) harm. |
Criteria that need to be met: | |
• Statistically significant results are considered to represent sufficient evidence to support conclusions; or | |
• The numbers of trials/participants included in the analysis for a particular outcome are also considered. For example: meta-analysis yielding a statistically significant pooled result based on a large number of included trials/participants; or narrative data with statistically significant results, such as 12 studies of 14 showing a significant effect of an intervention on a particular outcome. | |
Some evidence from trials
| Less conclusive evidence to make a decision about the effects of a particular intervention(s) in relation to a specific outcome(s). |
Criteria that need to be met: | |
• A narrative synthesis of results, with the result qualified according to the review findings, e.g., 'some evidence (5 studies of 9) reported a positive effect of ....' A rating of 'some evidence' is based on more equivocal results than those rated as 'sufficient evidence'. For example, while 12/14 statistically significant studies would be classed as 'sufficient evidence', 5/9 statistically significant studies would be rated as 'some evidence'; or | |
• A rating of 'some evidence' may also be based on a statistically significant result obtained in a small number of trials; or a statistically significant result obtained from trials with a small number of participants. | |
Insufficient evidence from trials
| Not enough evidence to support conclusions about the effects of the intervention(s) on the basis of the included studies. This should be interpreted as 'no evidence of effect', rather than 'evidence of no effect'. |
Criteria that need to be met: | |
• Statistically non-significant results; or | |
• Where the number of trials and/or participants is small, 'insufficient evidence' may reflect lack of power to be able to detect an effect of the intervention; or | |
• Where the number of trials and/or participants is large, 'insufficient evidence' may reflect underlying ineffectiveness of the intervention. | |
Insufficient evidence in relation to measurement
| Not enough evidence to support conclusions about the effects of the intervention due to a lack of reporting on the specified outcomes. |
Criteria that need to be met: | |
• The review elected not to report on a particular outcome(s) despite being reported by included trials; or | |
• The review was not able to report on the outcome, as data for the outcome were not reported by included trials. |
Consumer oriented outcomes |
---|
Knowledge and understanding |
Communication |
Patient involvement in care process |
Evaluation of care |
Support |
Skills acquisition |
Health status and well being |
Health behaviour |
Treatment outcomes |
Health care provider oriented outcomes
|
Knowledge and understanding |
Consultation processes |
Health service delivery oriented outcomes
|
Service delivery level |
Related to research |
Societal or governmental |