62
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The harvest plot: A method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of interventions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          One attraction of meta-analysis is the forest plot, a compact overview of the essential data included in a systematic review and the overall 'result'. However, meta-analysis is not always suitable for synthesising evidence about the effects of interventions which may influence the wider determinants of health. As part of a systematic review of the effects of population-level tobacco control interventions on social inequalities in smoking, we designed a novel approach to synthesis intended to bring aspects of the graphical directness of a forest plot to bear on the problem of synthesising evidence from a complex and diverse group of studies.

          Methods

          We coded the included studies (n = 85) on two methodological dimensions (suitability of study design and quality of execution) and extracted data on effects stratified by up to six different dimensions of inequality (income, occupation, education, gender, race or ethnicity, and age), distinguishing between 'hard' (behavioural) and 'intermediate' (process or attitudinal) outcomes. Adopting a hypothesis-testing approach, we then assessed which of three competing hypotheses (positive social gradient, negative social gradient, or no gradient) was best supported by each study for each dimension of inequality.

          Results

          We plotted the results on a matrix ('harvest plot') for each category of intervention, weighting studies by the methodological criteria and distributing them between the competing hypotheses. These matrices formed part of the analytical process and helped to encapsulate the output, for example by drawing attention to the finding that increasing the price of tobacco products may be more effective in discouraging smoking among people with lower incomes and in lower occupational groups.

          Conclusion

          The harvest plot is a novel and useful method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of population-level interventions. It contributes to the challenge of making best use of all available evidence by incorporating all relevant data. The visual display assists both the process of synthesis and the assimilation of the findings. The method is suitable for adaptation to a variety of questions in evidence synthesis and may be particularly useful for systematic reviews addressing the broader type of research question which may be most relevant to policymakers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews

          Background The inclusion of qualitative studies in systematic reviews poses methodological challenges. This paper presents worked examples of two methods of data synthesis (textual narrative and thematic), used in relation to one review, with the aim of enabling researchers to consider the strength of different approaches. Methods A systematic review of lay perspectives of infant size and growth was conducted, locating 19 studies (including both qualitative and quantitative). The data extracted from these were synthesised using both a textual narrative and a thematic synthesis. Results The processes of both methods are presented, showing a stepwise progression to the final synthesis. Both methods led us to similar conclusions about lay views toward infant size and growth. Differences between methods lie in the way they dealt with study quality and heterogeneity. Conclusion On the basis of the work reported here, we consider textual narrative and thematic synthesis have strengths and weaknesses in relation to different research questions. Thematic synthesis holds most potential for hypothesis generation, but may obscure heterogeneity and quality appraisal. Textual narrative synthesis is better able to describe the scope of existing research and account for the strength of evidence, but is less good at identifying commonality.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis.

              Research review has long been one of the most important scholarly activities in all branches of science. While there is sometimes a single study so well-designed, well carried out, and difficult to replicate that its findings are accepted as conclusive, more often there are many studies on a given topic, no one of which clearly supersedes the others. These studies may be done by different investigators using different methods or different populations. They may arrive at different conclusions. When this is the case, there is a need for reviewers to carefully consider the evidence and to put forth conclusions or hypotheses about where the weight of the evidence lies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central
                1471-2288
                2008
                25 February 2008
                : 8
                : 8
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow, UK
                [2 ]Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
                [3 ]Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
                [4 ]Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, UK
                [5 ]London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
                Article
                1471-2288-8-8
                10.1186/1471-2288-8-8
                2270283
                18298827
                a76541e8-bebd-468c-a891-1010f1e855ec
                Copyright © 2008 Ogilvie et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 22 October 2007
                : 25 February 2008
                Categories
                Research Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article