Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2013 | Short report | Ausgabe 1/2013 Open Access

Implementation Science 1/2013

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

Zeitschrift:
Implementation Science > Ausgabe 1/2013
Autoren:
Lauren Albrecht, Mandy Archibald, Danielle Arseneau, Shannon D Scott
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​1748-5908-8-52) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there are no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

LA conceptualized the checklist and coordinated the studies that facilitated the development of the checklist. SDS conceptualized the systematic reviews and secured study funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) and the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Alberta. She designed and led the systematic reviews. MA participated in the second stage of checklist development. DA participated in the third stage of checklist development. All authors contributed to manuscript drafts and reviewed the final manuscript.

Abstract

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.
Zusatzmaterial
Additional file 1: Improving reporting of behavioural interventions: WIDER Consensus Statement. (PDF 36 KB)
13012_2012_629_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Additional file 2: Table S2: WIDER Recommendations Checklist, Phase One. (DOC 79 KB)
13012_2012_629_MOESM2_ESM.doc
Additional file 3: Table S3: WIDER Recommendations Checklist, Phase Two. (DOCX 31 KB)
13012_2012_629_MOESM3_ESM.docx
Additional file 4: Table S4: WIDER Checklist Development, Phase Three. (DOCX 25 KB)
13012_2012_629_MOESM4_ESM.docx
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2013

Implementation Science 1/2013 Zur Ausgabe