Data collection instrument and procedure for systematic reviews in the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Task Force on Community Preventive Services.

INTRODUCTION: A standardized abstraction form and procedure was developed to provide consistency, reduce bias, and improve validity and reliability in the Guide to Community Preventive Services: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations (the Guide). DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT: The content of the abstraction form was based on methodologies used in other systematic reviews; reporting standards established by major health and social science journals; the evaluation, statistical and meta-analytic literature; expert opinion and review; and pilot-testing. The form is used to classify and describe key characteristics of the intervention and evaluation (26 questions) and assess the quality of the study's execution (23 questions). Study procedures and results are collected and specific threats to the validity of the study are assessed across six categories (intervention and study descriptions, sampling, measurement, analysis, interpretation of results and other execution issues). DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES: Each study is abstracted by two independent reviewers and reconciled by the chapter development team. Reviewers are trained and provided with feedback. DISCUSSION: What to abstract and how to summarize the data are discretionary choices that influence conclusions drawn on the quality of execution of the study and its effectiveness. The form balances flexibility for the evaluation of papers with different study designs and intervention types with the need to ask specific questions to maximize validity and reliability. It provides a structured format that researchers and others can use to review the content and quality of papers, conduct systematic reviews, or develop manuscripts. A systematic approach to developing and evaluating manuscripts will help to promote overall improvement of the scientific literature.

Predictors of time spent on partner notification in four US sites.

OBJECTIVE: To identify determinants of time spent on partner notification clients in four STD programmes in the United States. METHODS: 11 disease intervention specialists (DIS) in each of three urban sites (n = 33) and seven DIS in one rural site recorded their activities and clients for 14 working days. The total amount of time for partner notification activities was computed for each client. Data were analysed using random effects regression. RESULTS: Across sites, 429 of 2506 (37.4%) recorded hours were spent on partner notification (PN) activities with 1148 clients. Client type, STD diagnosis, outcome, demographic characteristics, mileage, and study site explained 33.7% of the variance in the total time spent on partner notification clients. Clients who took significantly more time than the reference case included those who were both contacts and original patients, HIV/AIDS clients, non-primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis clients, STD clients who were infected and treated, and clients for whom travel was necessary. Demographic characteristics of both client and worker were not associated with the time spent on partner notification. CONCLUSIONS: These data document the labour intensive nature of partner notification, especially for HIV and non-P&S syphilis clients. STD programmes that have a higher number of these clients are probably dedicating more resources to partner notification. More research is needed on additional predictors so that programmes can better understand and allocate staff and financial resources to partner notification activities.