A Systematic Review of Reporting Tools Applicable to Sexual and Reproductive Health Programmes: Step 1 in Developing Programme Reporting Standards

Anna Kågesten, Ӧzge Tunçalp, Moazzam Ali, Venkatraman Chandra-Mouli, Nhan Tran and A Metin Gülmezoglu

PLOS ONE, 2015, vol. 10, issue 9, 1-19

Abstract: Background: Complete and accurate reporting of programme preparation, implementation and evaluation processes in the field of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) is essential to understand the impact of SRH programmes, as well as to guide their replication and scale-up. Objectives: To provide an overview of existing reporting tools and identify core items used in programme reporting with a focus on programme preparation, implementation and evaluation processes. Methods: A systematic review was completed for the period 2000–2014. Reporting guidelines, checklists and tools, irrespective of study design, applicable for reporting on programmes targeting SRH outcomes, were included. Two independent reviewers screened the title and abstract of all records. Full texts were assessed in duplicate, followed by data extraction on the focus, content area, year of publication, validation and description of reporting items. Data was synthesized using an iterative thematic approach, where items related to programme preparation, implementation and evaluation in each tool were extracted and aggregated into a consolidated list. Results: Out of the 3,656 records screened for title and abstracts, full texts were retrieved for 182 articles, out of which 108 were excluded. Seventy-four full text articles corresponding to 45 reporting tools were retained for synthesis. The majority of tools were developed for reporting on intervention research (n = 15), randomized controlled trials (n = 8) and systematic reviews (n = 7). We identified a total of 50 reporting items, across three main domains and corresponding sub-domains: programme preparation (objective/focus, design, piloting); programme implementation (content, timing/duration/location, providers/staff, participants, delivery, implementation outcomes), and programme evaluation (process evaluation, implementation barriers/facilitators, outcome/impact evaluation). Conclusions: Over the past decade a wide range of tools have been developed to improve the reporting of health research. Development of Programme Reporting Standards (PRS) for SRH can fill a significant gap in existing reporting tools. This systematic review is the first step in the development of such standards. In the next steps, we will draft a preliminary version of the PRS based on the aggregate list of identified items, and finalize the tool using a consensus process among experts and user-testing.

Date: 2015
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138647 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 38647&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0138647

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138647

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().