Analytic Framework [PDF - 290 KB] – see Figure 1 on page 67
When starting an effectiveness review, the systematic review team develops an analytic framework. The analytic framework illustrates how the intervention approach is thought to affect public health. It guides the search for evidence and may be used to summarize the evidence collected. The analytic framework often includes intermediate outcomes, potential effect modifiers, potential harms, and potential additional benefits.
No content is available for this section.
The number of studies and publications do not always correspond (e.g., a publication may include several studies or one study may be explained in several publications).
Davison BJ, Kirk P, Degner LF, Hassard TH. Information and patient participation in screening for prostate cancer. Patient Educ Counseling 1999;37:255–63.
Dolan JG, Frisina S. Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Making 2002;22:125–39.
Flood A, Wennberg J, Nease R, Fowler F, Ding J, Hynes L. The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer. J Gen Intern Med 1996;11:342–9.
Frosch DL, Kaplan RM, Felitti V. The evaluation of two methods to facilitate shared decision making for men considering the prostate-specific antigen test. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:391–8.
Pignone M, Harris R, Kinsinger L. Videotape-based decision aid for colon cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:761–9.
Rimer BK, Halabi S, Sugg SC, et al. Effects of a mammography decision making intervention at 12 and 24 months. Am J Prev Med 2002;22:247–57.
Rimer BK, Halabi S, Sugg SC, et al. The short-term impact of tailored mammography decision-making interventions. Patient Educ Counseling 2001;43:269–85.
Schapira MM, VanRuiswyk J. The effect of an illustrated pamphlet decision aid on the use of prostate cancer screening tests. J Fam Pract 2000;49:418–24.
Volk R, Cass A, Spann S. A randomized controlled trial of shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Arch Fam Med 1999;8:333–40.
Wilt TJ, Paul J, Murdoch M, Nelson D, Nugent S, Rubins HB. Educating men about prostate cancer screening. A randomized trial of a mailed pamphlet. Eff Clin Practice 2001;4:112–20.
Wolf AM, Nasser JF, Wolf AM, Schorling JB. The impact of informed consent on patient interest in prostate-specific antigen screening. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:1333–6.
Wolf AM, Schorling JB. Does informed consent alter elderly patients’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:24–30.
Wolf AM, Schorling JB. Preferences of elderly men for prostate-specific antigen screening and the impact of informed consent. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1998;53:M195–200.
Electronic searches for literature were conducted in MEDLINE, National Library of Medicine’s Bioethicsline, PsychINFO, and the Chronic Disease Prevention databases. Also reviewed were the references listed in all retrieved articles, as well as other key systematic reviews and review articles. In addition, we consulted with experts on the systematic review development team and elsewhere.
Only journal articles were included. To be included in the reviews, studies had the following characteristics:
- Publication date of 1966 through 2002
- Primary study rather than a guideline or review
- Took place in a developed country or countries
- Met the systematic review development team’s definition of the intervention
- Provided information on one or more outcomes related to the analytic framework
- Compared a group exposed to the intervention with a group not exposed or less exposed (comparisons could be concurrent or in the same group over a period of time)