Janet Harris

Bio: Janet Harris is an academic researcher from University of Sheffield. The author has contributed to research in topics: Systematic review & Health care. The author has an hindex of 24, co-authored 67 publications receiving 2329 citations. Previous affiliations of Janet Harris include Analysis Group & University of Oxford.

GridPP: development of the UK computing Grid for particle physics

Abstract: The GridPP Collaboration is building a UK computing Grid for particle physics, as part of the international effort towards computing for the Large Hadron Collider. The project, funded by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC), began in September 2001 and completed its first phase 3 years later. GridPP is a collaboration of approximately 100 researchers in 19 UK university particle physics groups, the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils and CERN, reflecting the strategic importance of the project. In collaboration with other European and US efforts, the first phase of the project demonstrated the feasibility of developing, deploying and operating a Grid-based computing system to meet the UK needs of the Large Hadron Collider experiments. This note describes the work undertaken to achieve this goal.

COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies)

Abstract: The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) covers the reporting of studies using interviews and focus groups It is the only reporting guidance for qualitative research to have received other than isolated endorsement although it applies to only a few of the many qualitative methods in use The COREQ checklist was developed to promote explicit and comprehensive reporting of interviews and focus groups The COREQ checklist consists of 32 criteria, with a descriptor to supplement each item This chapter discusses how best to use the guideline, development process, evidence of the effectiveness of guideline, endorsement and adherence, cautions and limitations, and key features of the COREQ It is important that researchers provide sufficient detail on their methods of data analysis and the relationship between the analysis and the findings in the research report so that reviewers can assess the rigor of the analysis and the credibility of the findings

Sicily statement on classification and development of evidence-based practice learning assessment tools

Abstract: Teaching the steps of evidence-based practice (EBP) has become standard curriculum for health professions at both student and professional levels. Determining the best methods for evaluating EBP learning is hampered by a dearth of valid and practical assessment tools and by the absence of guidelines for classifying the purpose of those that exist. Conceived and developed by delegates of the Fifth International Conference of Evidence-Based Health Care Teachers and Developers, the aim of this statement is to provide guidance for purposeful classification and development of tools to assess EBP learning. This paper identifies key principles for designing EBP learning assessment tools, recommends a common taxonomy for new and existing tools, and presents the Classification Rubric for EBP Assessment Tools in Education (CREATE) framework for classifying such tools. Recommendations are provided for developers of EBP learning assessments and priorities are suggested for the types of assessments that are needed. Examples place existing EBP assessments into the CREATE framework to demonstrate how a common taxonomy might facilitate purposeful development and use of EBP learning assessment tools. The widespread adoption of EBP into professional education requires valid and reliable measures of learning. Limited tools exist with established psychometrics. This international consensus statement strives to provide direction for developers of new EBP learning assessment tools and a framework for classifying the purposes of such tools.

The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews

Abstract: There is increasing interest in using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) within organisations delivering health related services. However, organisations have had mixed success in implementing PROMs and there is little understanding about why this may be. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing PROMs in organisations. A systematic review of reviews was undertaken. Searches were conducted of five electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, during the week of the 20th February 2017. Additional search methods included website searching and reference checking. To be included, a publication had to be a review of the literature, describe its methods and include information related to implementing PROMs. The reviews were extracted using a standardised form and assessed for their risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. The findings were synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (PROSPERO) (CRD42017057491). Initially 2047 records were identified. After assessing eligibility, six reviews were included. These reviews varied in their review type and focus. Different issues arose at distinct stages of the implementation process. Organisations needed to invest time and resources in two key stages early in the implementation process: ‘designing’ the processes for using PROMs within an organisation; and ‘preparing’ an organisation and its staff. The ‘designing’ stage involved organisations planning not just which PROMs to use and how to administer them, but also how the data would be used for clinical purposes. The ‘preparing’ stage involved getting an organisation and its staff ready to use PROMs, particularly persuading clinicians of the validity and value of PROMs, delivering training, and developing electronic systems. Having an implementation lead overseeing the process and developing the process based on feedback were also identified as facilitating implementation. Organisations implementing PROMs need to invest time and resources in ‘designing’ the PROMs strategy and ‘preparing’ the organisation to use PROMs. Focusing on these earlier stages may prevent problems arising when PROMs are used in practice.

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.

Abstract: The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.