Sandy Oliver

Bio: Sandy Oliver is an academic researcher from Institute of Education. The author has contributed to research in topics: Systematic review & Health promotion. The author has an hindex of 53, co-authored 220 publications receiving 14039 citations. Previous affiliations of Sandy Oliver include University of Johannesburg & University of the West of England.

Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ

Abstract: The syntheses of multiple qualitative studies can pull together data across different contexts, generate new theoretical or conceptual models, identify research gaps, and provide evidence for the development, implementation and evaluation of health interventions This study aims to develop a framework for reporting the synthesis of qualitative health research We conducted a comprehensive search for guidance and reviews relevant to the synthesis of qualitative research, methodology papers, and published syntheses of qualitative health research in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and relevant organisational websites to May 2011 Initial items were generated inductively from guides to synthesizing qualitative health research The preliminary checklist was piloted against forty published syntheses of qualitative research, purposively selected to capture a range of year of publication, methods and methodologies, and health topics We removed items that were duplicated, impractical to assess, and rephrased items for clarity The Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) statement consists of 21 items grouped into five main domains: introduction, methods and methodology, literature search and selection, appraisal, and synthesis of findings The ENTREQ statement can help researchers to report the stages most commonly associated with the synthesis of qualitative health research: searching and selecting qualitative research, quality appraisal, and methods for synthesising qualitative findings The synthesis of qualitative research is an expanding and evolving methodological area and we would value feedback from all stakeholders for the continued development and extension of the ENTREQ statement

Interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking in pregnancy remains one of the few preventable factors associated with complications in pregnancy, low birthweight, preterm birth and has serious long-term health implications for women and babies. Smoking in pregnancy is decreasing in high-income countries and increasing in low- to middle-income countries and is strongly associated with poverty, low educational attainment, poor social support and psychological illness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy on smoking behaviour and perinatal health outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (June 2008), the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Trials Register (June 2008), EMBASE, PsycLIT, and CINAHL (all from January 2003 to June 2008). We contacted trial authors to locate additional unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials where smoking cessation during pregnancy was a primary aim of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were identified and data extracted by one person and checked by a second. Subgroup analysis was conducted to assess the effect of risk of trial bias, intensity of the intervention and main intervention strategy used. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-two trials are included. Fifty-six randomised controlled trials (over 20,000 pregnant women) and nine cluster-randomised trials (over 5000 pregnant women) provided data on smoking cessation outcomes.There was a significant reduction in smoking in late pregnancy following interventions (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 0.96), an absolute difference of six in 100 women who stopped smoking during pregnancy. However, there is significant heterogeneity in the combined data (I(2) > 60%). In the trials with the lowest risk of bias, the interventions had less effect (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.99), and lower heterogeneity (I(2) = 36%). Eight trials of smoking relapse prevention (over 1000 women) showed no statistically significant reduction in relapse.Smoking cessation interventions reduced low birthweight (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95) and preterm birth (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98), and there was a 53.91g (95% CI 10.44 g to 95.38 g) increase in mean birthweight. There were no statistically significant differences in neonatal intensive care unit admissions, very low birthweight, stillbirths, perinatal or neonatal mortality but these analyses had very limited power. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Smoking cessation interventions in pregnancy reduce the proportion of women who continue to smoke in late pregnancy, and reduce low birthweight and preterm birth. Smoking cessation interventions in pregnancy need to be implemented in all maternity care settings. Given the difficulty many pregnant women addicted to tobacco have quitting during pregnancy, population-based measures to reduce smoking and social inequalities should be supported.

An Introduction to Systematic Reviews

Abstract: Introducing Systematic Reviews - David Gough, Sandy Oliver and James Thomas Stakeholder Perspectives and Participation in Reviews - Rebecca Rees and Sandy Oliver Commonality and Diversity in Reviews - David Gough and James Thomas Getting Started with a Review - Sandy Oliver, Kelly Dickson, and Mark Newman Information Management in Reviews - Jeff Brunton and James Thomas Finding Relevant Studies - Ginny Brunton, Claire Stansfield & James Thomas Describing and Analysing Studies - Sandy Oliver and Katy Sutcliffe Quality and Relevance Appraisal - Angela Harden and David Gough Synthesis: Combining Results Systematically and Appropriately - James Thomas, Angela Harden and Mark Newman Making a Difference with Systematic Reviews - Ruth Stewart and Sandy Oliver Moving Forward - David Gough, Sandy Oliver and James Thomas

Clarifying differences between review designs and methods

Abstract: This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews. Terminology is necessary for planning, describing, appraising, and using reviews, building infrastructure to enable the conduct and use of reviews, and for further developing review methodology. There is insufficient consensus on terminology for a typology of reviews to be produced and any such attempt is likely to be limited by the overlapping nature of the dimensions along which reviews vary. It is therefore proposed that the most useful strategy for the field is to develop terminology for the main dimensions of variation. Three such main dimensions are proposed: (1) aims and approaches (including what the review is aiming to achieve, the theoretical and ideological assumptions, and the use of theory and logics of aggregation and configuration in synthesis); (2) structure and components (including the number and type of mapping and synthesis components and how they relate); and (3) breadth and depth and the extent of ‘work done’ in addressing a research issue (including the breadth of review questions, the detail with which they are addressed, and the amount the review progresses a research agenda). This then provides an overarching strategy to encompass more detailed descriptions of methodology and may lead in time to a more overarching system of terminology for systematic reviews.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

Abstract: This paper focuses on scoping studies, an approach to reviewing the literature which to date has received little attention in the research methods literature. We distinguish between different types of scoping studies and indicate where these stand in relation to full systematic reviews. We outline a framework for conducting a scoping study based on our recent experiences of reviewing the literature on services for carers for people with mental health problems. Where appropriate, our approach to scoping the field is contrasted with the procedures followed in systematic reviews. We emphasize how including a consultation exercise in this sort of study may enhance the results, making them more useful to policy makers, practitioners and service users. Finally, we consider the advantages and limitations of the approach and suggest that a wider debate is called for about the role of the scoping study in relation to other types of literature reviews.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Abstract: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies

Abstract: Background and objectives : The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Methods : Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework—Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA)—was used to examine the main review types. Results : Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Conclusions : Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.