Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies method

Description

The process described by Thomas, Ciliska, Dobbins, & Micucci (2004) is a method to guide knowledge synthesis. This method discusses a standardized means of assessing study quality and developing recommendations for study findings and products, including a user manual and a “Quality Appraisal Tool for Quantitative Studies.” The method and accompanying tool is used by the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP).

The EPHPP began in 1998 with funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC). The goal of the project was to address the lack of high quality evidence to support public health interventions outlined in Ontario’s standards for public health known as Ontario Mandatory Health Programs and Service Guidelines (MHPSG, 1997). In order to provide high quality systematic reviews to address the public health sectors need for evidence to support practice, a standardized method was developed.

The quality appraisal method requires a group of four to six experts who can facilitate a process that includes question generation, searching for literature, appraisal of the literature, data extraction, and the synthesis and dissemination of results. The EPHPP has created a current, standardized method for the systematic review of public health literature. The authors of this method do not specify theoretical frameworks or principles that led to the development of this method.

Steps for Using Method/Tool

There are seven steps for using the EPHPP Quality Assessment Method. As described by Thomas et al. (2004), these steps are:

1. Question formulation - to guide the review process and provide boundaries for the searching of the literature;
2. Literature search and retrieval – at least seven electronic databases are searched with a series of terms organized around the topic of interest;
3. Determining relevance criteria - to establish unique relevance criteria including a description of the population of interest, interventions, outcomes and study design;
4. Assessment of literature for relevance and quality - independent assessment by two reviewers using established relevance criteria. Any discrepancies are resolved through discussion and consensus, with an additional person to resolve disagreement;
5. Data extraction and narrative synthesis - using strong and moderate studies and including the funding source, the number of participants per group, the number of dropouts, the target population description, the interventions, the outcomes and the length of follow-up;
6. Peer review of the report – synthesis of information and creation of a written report for peer review by five or more public health experts; and
7. Dissemination – involves active dissemination strategies in order to promote public health professionals use and uptake of the review results