支持社区预防服务工作组推荐意见研究的来源。
Sources of Support for Studies That Inform Recommendations of the Community Preventive Services Task Force.
机构信息
2511 Office of Disease Prevention, Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
314365 The Community Guide Branch, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
出版信息
Public Health Rep. 2020 Nov/Dec;135(6):813-822. doi: 10.1177/0033354920954557. Epub 2020 Oct 13.
OBJECTIVES
The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) makes evidence-based recommendations about preventive services, programs, and policies in community settings to improve public health. CPSTF recommendations are based on systematic evidence reviews. This study examined the sponsors (ie, sources of financial, material, or intellectual support) for publications included in systematic reviews used by the CPSTF to make recommendations during a 9-year period.
METHODS
We examined systematic evidence reviews (effectiveness reviews and economic reviews) for CPSTF findings issued from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2018. We assessed study publications used in these reviews for sources of support; we classified sources as government, nonprofit, industry, or no identified support. We also identified country of origin for each sponsor and the most frequently mentioned sponsors.
RESULTS
The CPSTF issued findings based on 144 systematic reviews (106 effectiveness reviews and 38 economic reviews). These reviews included 3846 publications: 3363 publications in effectiveness reviews and 483 publications in economic reviews. Government agencies supported 57.1% (n = 1919) of publications in effectiveness reviews and 59.2% (n = 286) in economic reviews. More than 1500 study sponsors from 36 countries provided support. The National Institutes of Health was the leading sponsor for effectiveness reviews (21.3%; 718 of 3363) and economic reviews (16.2%; 78 of 480), followed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (7.0%; 234 of 3363 effectiveness reviews and 14.8%; 71 of 480 economic reviews).
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence base used by the CPSTF was supported by an array of sponsors, with government agencies providing the most support. Study findings highlight the need for sponsorship transparency and the role of government as a leading supporter of studies that underpin CPSTF recommendations for improving public health.
目的
社区预防服务工作组（CPSTF）针对社区环境中的预防服务、计划和政策提出基于证据的建议，以改善公共卫生。CPSTF 的建议基于系统的证据审查。本研究调查了在 9 年期间，CPSTF 用于提出建议的系统证据审查（有效性审查和经济审查）中包含的出版物的赞助商（即财政、物质或智力支持的来源）。
方法
我们检查了 2010 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 12 月 31 日期间 CPSTF 发布的发现的系统证据审查（有效性审查和经济审查）。我们评估了这些审查中使用的研究出版物的支持来源；我们将来源分为政府、非营利组织、行业或无明确支持。我们还确定了每个赞助商的原籍国和最常提到的赞助商。
结果
CPSTF 根据 144 项系统审查（106 项有效性审查和 38 项经济审查）发布了发现。这些审查包括 3846 篇出版物：3363 篇在有效性审查中，483 篇在经济审查中。政府机构支持了 57.1%（n = 1919）的有效性审查出版物和 59.2%（n = 286）的经济审查出版物。来自 36 个国家的 1500 多个研究赞助商提供了支持。美国国立卫生研究院是有效性审查（21.3%；3363 篇中的 718 篇）和经济审查（16.2%；480 篇中的 78 篇）的主要赞助商，其次是疾病控制和预防中心（7.0%；3363 篇中的 234 篇和 480 篇中的 14.8%；71 篇）。
结论
CPSTF 使用的证据基础得到了一系列赞助商的支持，政府机构提供了最多的支持。研究结果强调了赞助商透明化的必要性以及政府作为支持基础研究的主要支持者的作用，这些研究为 CPSTF 提出的改善公共卫生的建议提供了依据。
Zotero 插件