Explanation & Elaboration

15. Relation to other evidence

• Compares and contrasts study results with relevant findings of others, drawing on broad review of the literature; use of a summary table may be helpful in building on existing evidence

Example

"The self management of asthma is recognised as an effective strategy in reducing morbidity. In the past, education programmes in the self management of asthma have focused on primary school children or adults. Initiatives for asthma education for young people, aimed at individuals with asthma, have had minimal impact on asthma morbidity, and education programmes conducted in hospitals have problems attracting young people. In our study, the students who were educated by their peers had a lower number of reported asthma attacks and school absenteeism compared with the control group. Improvements in quality of life and asthma morbidity failed to cascade from year 10 into year 7 because the year 7 students only received the performances about asthma and not the peer led teaching.

Interventions using peer education may have a higher chance of success in adolescence than other types of interventions. In a meta­analysis of 143 programmes in drug prevention in adolescents, the effect size was largest for peer teaching programmes than for other teaching strategies. Young people seem to prefer peers for advice, and change is more likely to occur if someone they can relate to or perceive as a role model relays the message. Additionally, peer educators enhance the programme's effect by directing peer pressure in a positive direction." [38]

Elaboration

Readers will want to know how the reported results relate to those of other published studies, both in terms of the results and impact of the intervention and in terms of the format and delivery of the intervention. Findings from individual studies are greatly enhanced when compared and contrasted with previously published articles. Authors should always compare their study results with appropriate findings from other relevant published work. This discussion should be as systematic as possible and not be limited to studies that support the results of the current study, and, if available, there should be reference to existing systematic reviews. Use of tables and figures to help compare and summarize previous work may also be helpful.

Such information should help readers assess whether the results of the study are similar to those of other relevant studies, and whether the particular intervention that was used explains any noted differences. Reference may well be both to studies of the subject of the quality improvement research (such as asthma management in the above example) and to published literature on quality improvement interventions (e.g., audit, academic detailing, change management strategies). The example provides a concise and reasonable assessment of recent literature by relating findings from the present study to those from other studies that are likely to be summarized in the cited meta-analysis. These comparisons provide the reader with a solid foundation upon which to anchor the findings of the current report. Finally, authors should explain how the new study adds to the existing body of evidence. This is not done in the example above, but is an important consideration.

References

38. Shah S, Peat JK, Mazurski EJ, et al. Effect of peer led programme for asthma education in adolescents: cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2001;322(7286):583-585.

 

to top ^