Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Health Education Journal
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peersman, G.
Right arrow Articles by Oakley, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Reviews

Discrepancies in findings from effectiveness reviews: the case of health promotion interventions to change cholesterol levels

G. Peersman

Centre for the Evaluation of Health Promotion and Social Interventions (EPI-Centre), Social Science Research Unit, London University Institute of Education, 18 Woburn Square, London WC1H ONS

A. Harden

Centre for the Evaluation of Health Promotion and Social Interventions (EPI-Centre), Social Science Research Unit, London University Institute of Education, 18 Woburn Square, London WC1H ONS

S. Oliver

Centre for the Evaluation of Health Promotion and Social Interventions (EPI-Centre), Social Science Research Unit, London University Institute of Education, 18 Woburn Square, London WC1H ONS

A. Oakley

Centre for the Evaluation of Health Promotion and Social Interventions (EPI-Centre), Social Science Research Unit, London University Institute of Education, 18 Woburn Square, London WC1H ONS

The research reported in this paper aimed to determine how different search strate gies for identifying primary studies, and different inclusion criteria linked to study design, may alter the recommendations of reviews about health promotion inter ventions to change cholesterol levels. Varying search strategies have an effect on the overall number of studies that can be included and on the relative numbers of different study designs. Differences in inclusion criteria result in reviews similar in focus being different in their recommendations. Thus, methodological differences between effectiveness reviews are of substantive concern; the way a review is done affects its 'findings'. (This paper is the second in a series of three. The first was published in the previous issue of the HEJ.)

Key Words: effectiveness review • evaluation • search strategy • methodology

Health Education Journal, Vol. 58, No. 2, 192-202 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/001789699905800210
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Health Education JournalHome page
A. Harden, G. Peersman, S. Oliver, and A. Oakley
Identifying primary research on electronic databases to inform decision-making in health promotion: the case of sexual health promotion
Health Education Journal, January 1, 1999; 58(3): 290 - 301.
[Abstract] [PDF]