Sidelines 18 (3)
Valerie Wildridge
Information & Library
Service and Projects Coordinator
King's Fund
Email:
References are taken from the
King's Fund Information and Library Service's database which, in
addition to being accessible via NHS core content or OVID is available
at
http://librarycatalogue.kingsfund.org.uk/uhtbin/cgisirsi/0/0/0/49.
If you have any comments to make about the content or format of the
new Sidelines column, please email them to
Hutton, J, et al.
Coverage with evidence development: an
examination of conceptual and policy issues. International Journal of
Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2007;23(4):425-435
The application of
conditionality to coverage decisions for healthcare technologies is
increasing. Coverage with evidence development [CED] represents a
specific approach to coverage for promising technologies for which the
evidence remains uncertain. CED demands that additional evidence is
generated to address the sources of uncertainty and secure ongoing
coverage. This study explores the conceptual and policy issues
relating to CED and discusses issues involved in operationalising CED
in practice, including presenting criteria for which technologies may
be most suitable for CED. This study is intended to further the debate
on the use of CED as well as highlight areas that warrant further
research. 1 fig. 1 table 17 refs. [Publisher’s Commentary]
Griffin, B.L. and Gray, J.
Participatory appraisal: a tool for organisational planning and
launching a virtual organisation.
Primary Health Care
Research and Development. 2007;8(4):283-291
BACKGROUND: In 2003,
Gateshead Primary Care Trust, England established a virtual Centre for
Enabling Health Improvement [CEHI]. The aims included support for the
wider public health workforce and development of resources for health
to enable allied professionals to improve the health of the people of
Gateshead. In 2004, the CEHI steering group held a launch to provide a
networking opportunity for staff. METHOD: Participatory appraisal
methods informed the workshops for the launch that aimed to throw
light on the concerns of the public health workforce in their
day-to-day working lives. Three participatory workshops were planned:
a mapping workshop, a workshop about your working week and the
timeline workshop. These aimed to find out from the 89 delegates what
was special about their work, what the problems were and what were the
solutions. The adoption of participatory methods underpinned one of
CEHI's strategic goals namely, that the wider public health workforce
would contribute to planning and shaping CEHI's future plans. RESULTS:
The results illustrated the delegates' insight about special features
of their work, for instance: valuing opportunities for
multi-disciplinary working; issues such as inequalities in accessing
services and solutions such as the provision of better integration of
teams. CONCLUSION: The launch shaped a new approach to the delivery of
public health in Gateshead by acknowledging and valuing the
contribution of its public health workforce. The participatory
workshops provided a positive experience for the delegates by
contributing to the collection of information that formed the basis
for future activities such as the organisation of networking events on
current health topics including health needs assessment and lifestyle
issues. 3 tables 14 refs. [Publisher’s Abstract]
Bates, S.L., et al. Systematic maps to support the
evidence base in social care. Evidence and Policy. 2007;3(4):539-551
Social Care Institute
for Excellence [SCIE] aims to improve the experience of service users
and practitioners by developing and promoting good practice in the
social care sector by commissioning and disseminating knowledge-based
practice guidance. This article focuses on SCIE's development of the
role of systematic mapping in social care in the UK. It describes the
processes of mapping, with an introduction to the role of systematic
mapping in delivering an evidence base for social care. Finally, it
identifies some of the issues experienced and lessons learned from
piloting systematic mapping in two separate social care topics at SCIE.
2 figs. 15 refs. [Publisher’s Abstract]
Cullen, R. and Esson, R., editors. Assessing the
impact of information services in the health sector. Health
Information and Libraries Journal. 2007; 24:4-85 (Suppl.)
This special issue
focuses on evaluating the impact of information services in health
organisations. The seven articles include: 'Measuring the value and
impact of health and library services : past reflections, future
possibilities' by Joanne Gard Marshall, pp 4-17; 'Evaluating
information skills training in health libraries : a systematic review'
by Alison Brettle, pp18-37; 'Evaluation of outreach services for
primary care and mental health : assessing the impact' by Lyn Robinson
and David Bawden, pp 57-66; and, 'Assessing the impact of a study
skills programme on the academic development of nursing diploma
students at Northumbria University, UK' by Pam Bailey, et al.,
pp77-85. [BRD]
Van Doosselaere, C., et al. eHealth …… but is it
legal? Eurohealth. 2007;13(2):1-4
Unconstrained by
familiar points of entry to health care or traditional channels for
delivering information or care, the eHealth revolution has as many
serious implications for health care regulators and lawyers as for
medical professionals. In the context of the Commission's eEurope
Action Plan, the 'Legally eHealth' study established a baseline report
on existing EU level legislation, its impact on the delivery of
eHealth and an analysis of the legal and regulatory barriers and gaps
that may exist. This article gives an overview of some of the issues
studied and key recommendations made. 5 refs. [Publisher’s Summary]
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEHealth/pdf/eurohealth/vol13no2.pdf
Heller, R.F., et al. Critical appraisal for public
health : a new checklist. Public Health 2008; 122(1):92-98
OBJECTIVES: There have
been a number of attempts to develop critical appraisal tools, but few
have had a public health focus. This paper describes a new checklist
with public health aspects. STUDY DESIGN: Review of previous appraisal
instruments and pilot test of new checklist. METHODS: Criteria of
particular reference to public health practice were added to
well-established appraisal criteria. The checklist was piloted with 21
public health professionals, research staff or postgraduate students.
RESULTS: The checklist is organized using the 'ask', 'collect',
'understand' and 'use' categories of the Population Health Evidence
Cycle. Readers are asked to assess validity, completeness and
transferability of the data as they relate to: the study question; key
aspects of the methodology; possible public health implications of the
key results; and the implications for implementation in their own
public health practice. Of the 21 public health professionals that
piloted the checklist, 20 said that they found the checklist useful
and 18 would use it or recommend it in the future. Participants were
prepared to commit to the majority of the questions, and there was
good agreement with a consensus of 'correct' answers. CONCLUSIONS: The
public health critical appraisal checklist adds public health aspects
that were missing from previous critical appraisal tools. 2 tables 24
refs. [Publisher’s Abstract]
Back to Inform
18 (3) | 
