Modular literature review: a novel systematic search and review method to support priority setting in health policy and practice
Abstract Background There is an unmet need for review methods to support priority-setting, policy-making and strategic planning when a wide variety of interventions from differing disciplines may have the potential to impact a health outcome of interest. This article describes a Modular Literature R...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2021-11-01
|
| Series: | BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01463-y |
| _version_ | 1819036607672483840 |
|---|---|
| author | Annariina M. Koivu Patricia J. Hunter Pieta Näsänen-Gilmore Yvonne Muthiani Jaana Isojärvi Pia Pörtfors Ulla Ashorn Per Ashorn |
| author_facet | Annariina M. Koivu Patricia J. Hunter Pieta Näsänen-Gilmore Yvonne Muthiani Jaana Isojärvi Pia Pörtfors Ulla Ashorn Per Ashorn |
| author_sort | Annariina M. Koivu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background There is an unmet need for review methods to support priority-setting, policy-making and strategic planning when a wide variety of interventions from differing disciplines may have the potential to impact a health outcome of interest. This article describes a Modular Literature Review, a novel systematic search and review method that employs systematic search strategies together with a hierarchy-based appraisal and synthesis of the resulting evidence. Methods We designed the Modular Review to examine the effects of 43 interventions on a health problem of global significance. Using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design) framework, we developed a single four-module search template in which population, comparison and outcome modules were the same for each search and the intervention module was different for each of the 43 interventions. A series of literature searches were performed in five databases, followed by screening, extraction and analysis of data. “ES documents”, source documents for effect size (ES) estimates, were systematically identified based on a hierarchy of evidence. The evidence was categorised according to the likely effect on the outcome and presented in a standardised format with quantitative effect estimates, meta-analyses and narrative reporting. We compared the Modular Review to other review methods in health research for its strengths and limitations. Results The Modular Review method was used to review the impact of 46 antenatal interventions on four specified birth outcomes within 12 months. A total of 61,279 records were found; 35,244 were screened by title-abstract. Six thousand two hundred seventy-two full articles were reviewed against the inclusion criteria resulting in 365 eligible articles. Conclusions The Modular Review preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviews but can address multiple research questions simultaneously. The result is an accessible, reliable answer to the question of “what works?”. Thus, it is a well-suited literature review method to support prioritisation, decisions and planning to implement an agenda for health improvement. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T08:08:13Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a0b6e993906f476c873a37ec73f04e2a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2288 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T08:08:13Z |
| publishDate | 2021-11-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| spelling | doaj.art-a0b6e993906f476c873a37ec73f04e2a2022-12-21T19:10:44ZengBMCBMC Medical Research Methodology1471-22882021-11-0121111310.1186/s12874-021-01463-yModular literature review: a novel systematic search and review method to support priority setting in health policy and practiceAnnariina M. Koivu0Patricia J. Hunter1Pieta Näsänen-Gilmore2Yvonne Muthiani3Jaana Isojärvi4Pia Pörtfors5Ulla Ashorn6Per Ashorn7Tampere UniversityUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child HealthTampere UniversityTampere UniversityTampere UniversityFinnish Institute for Health and WelfareTampere UniversityTampere UniversityAbstract Background There is an unmet need for review methods to support priority-setting, policy-making and strategic planning when a wide variety of interventions from differing disciplines may have the potential to impact a health outcome of interest. This article describes a Modular Literature Review, a novel systematic search and review method that employs systematic search strategies together with a hierarchy-based appraisal and synthesis of the resulting evidence. Methods We designed the Modular Review to examine the effects of 43 interventions on a health problem of global significance. Using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design) framework, we developed a single four-module search template in which population, comparison and outcome modules were the same for each search and the intervention module was different for each of the 43 interventions. A series of literature searches were performed in five databases, followed by screening, extraction and analysis of data. “ES documents”, source documents for effect size (ES) estimates, were systematically identified based on a hierarchy of evidence. The evidence was categorised according to the likely effect on the outcome and presented in a standardised format with quantitative effect estimates, meta-analyses and narrative reporting. We compared the Modular Review to other review methods in health research for its strengths and limitations. Results The Modular Review method was used to review the impact of 46 antenatal interventions on four specified birth outcomes within 12 months. A total of 61,279 records were found; 35,244 were screened by title-abstract. Six thousand two hundred seventy-two full articles were reviewed against the inclusion criteria resulting in 365 eligible articles. Conclusions The Modular Review preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviews but can address multiple research questions simultaneously. The result is an accessible, reliable answer to the question of “what works?”. Thus, it is a well-suited literature review method to support prioritisation, decisions and planning to implement an agenda for health improvement.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01463-yModular reviewSystematic reviewReview methodologyPriority-settingHealth policyEvidence-based policy |
| spellingShingle | Annariina M. Koivu Patricia J. Hunter Pieta Näsänen-Gilmore Yvonne Muthiani Jaana Isojärvi Pia Pörtfors Ulla Ashorn Per Ashorn Modular literature review: a novel systematic search and review method to support priority setting in health policy and practice BMC Medical Research Methodology Modular review Systematic review Review methodology Priority-setting Health policy Evidence-based policy |
| title | Modular literature review: a novel systematic search and review method to support priority setting in health policy and practice |
| title_full | Modular literature review: a novel systematic search and review method to support priority setting in health policy and practice |
| title_fullStr | Modular literature review: a novel systematic search and review method to support priority setting in health policy and practice |
| title_full_unstemmed | Modular literature review: a novel systematic search and review method to support priority setting in health policy and practice |
| title_short | Modular literature review: a novel systematic search and review method to support priority setting in health policy and practice |
| title_sort | modular literature review a novel systematic search and review method to support priority setting in health policy and practice |
| topic | Modular review Systematic review Review methodology Priority-setting Health policy Evidence-based policy |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01463-y |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT annariinamkoivu modularliteraturereviewanovelsystematicsearchandreviewmethodtosupportprioritysettinginhealthpolicyandpractice AT patriciajhunter modularliteraturereviewanovelsystematicsearchandreviewmethodtosupportprioritysettinginhealthpolicyandpractice AT pietanasanengilmore modularliteraturereviewanovelsystematicsearchandreviewmethodtosupportprioritysettinginhealthpolicyandpractice AT yvonnemuthiani modularliteraturereviewanovelsystematicsearchandreviewmethodtosupportprioritysettinginhealthpolicyandpractice AT jaanaisojarvi modularliteraturereviewanovelsystematicsearchandreviewmethodtosupportprioritysettinginhealthpolicyandpractice AT piaportfors modularliteraturereviewanovelsystematicsearchandreviewmethodtosupportprioritysettinginhealthpolicyandpractice AT ullaashorn modularliteraturereviewanovelsystematicsearchandreviewmethodtosupportprioritysettinginhealthpolicyandpractice AT perashorn modularliteraturereviewanovelsystematicsearchandreviewmethodtosupportprioritysettinginhealthpolicyandpractice |