Abstract

Contents

• NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
• List of abbreviations
• Executive summary
• 1. Introduction
  • Background
  • Terminology
  • History of the LA role
  • Definitions and distinguishing features
  • Rationale for role/intervention
  • Theoretical basis of health-related lifestyle advisor
  • Mechanism and models of intervention
  • Challenges of evaluating public health interventions
• 2. Methods
  • Research question
  • Review question(s)
  • Review protocol
  • Review methods
  • Search strategy
  • Study selection criteria and procedures
  • Study quality assessment checklists and procedures
  • Data abstraction
  • Data synthesis
• 3. Results of the review
  • SECTION 1 STUDIES DESCRIBED BY INTERVENTION FOCUS
  • SECTION 2 INTERVENTIONS CONTEXT, MECHANISMS AND OUTCOMES
  • SECTION 3 ANALYSIS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS
• 4. Discussion
  • Analysis of the robustness of the review (sensitivity analysis)
  • Evidence application and utilisation: processes and challenges
• 5. Conclusions
  • Recommendations for practice
  • Recommendations for a future programme of research
• Acknowledgements
• References
• Appendix 1 Review of reviews
• Appendix 2 Original protocol
• Appendix 3 Multidimensional nature of the HRLA format
• Appendix 4 Project Advisory Group
• Appendix 5 Interview schedule
• Appendix 6 Search strategies for electronic databases
• Appendix 7 Search strategy for Google
• Appendix 8 Results returned for each Google search string
• Appendix 9 Website search results
• Appendix 10 Table of excluded studies
• Appendix 11 Intervention intensity rating
• Appendix 12 Studies success rating
• Appendix 13 Use of ICERs in the analysis of cost-effectiveness
• Health Technology Assessment programme

Suggested citation:

Carr SM, Lhussier M, Forster N, Geddes L, Deane K, Pennington M, et al. An evidence synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research on component intervention techniques, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, equity and acceptability of different versions of health-related lifestyle advisor role in improving health. Health Technol Assess 2011;15(9).

Declared competing interests of authors: none

The research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned by the HTA programme as project number 07/26/03. The contractual start date was in November 2007. The draft report began editorial review in October 2009 and was accepted for publication in February 2010. As the funder, by devising a commissioning brief, the HTA programme specified the research question and study design. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the referees for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the HTA programme or the Department of Health.