SDOH AND SOCIAL CHANGE

Purpose: This tool collates information from the literature gathered during the exhaustive evidence search. It brings all of the data into a central document to help the EBP team with the next step of the EBP process, synthesis.

Complete the data collection tool below for all included evidence from the exhaustive evidence search.

Article number

Reviewer names

Author, date, and title

Type of evidence

Population, size, and setting

Intervention

Findings that help answer the EBP question

Measures used

Limitations

Level of support for decision-making

Notes to the team

Enter #

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

Enter #

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

Enter #

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

Enter #

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

Enter #

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

Enter #

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

 Enter text

Record information from the exhaustive evidence search

Article number

Reviewer names

Author, date, and title

Type of evidence

Population, size, and setting

Intervention

Findings that help answer the EBP question

Measures used

Limitations

Level of support for decision-making

Notes to the team

Assign a unique number to each resource included in the table. This will help with tracking in subse-quent steps.

Record the names of the team members who read the article. This is needed for any follow-up questions and to ensure everyone has completed their assigned readings.

Record the last name of the first author of the article, the publication/communication date, and the title. This will help track articles throughout the literature search, screening, and review process. It is also helpful when someone has authored more than one publication included in the review. 

 Indicate the type of evidence provided by this source. This should be descriptive of the study, project, opinion, or report. Consider using descriptors from the word bank below.

Provide a quick review of the population, number of participants, and study location. Location can include the state and country and additional descriptors such as urban, rural, community-based, etc. Consider how the population, size, and setting relate to your EBP question. This may inform the level of detail you choose to record here.

Record the intervention(s) implemented or discussed in the article. This should relate to the intervention or comparison elements of your EBP question. Some evidence, such as observational studies or anecdotal evidence, may not have an intervention. However, you can record the focus of the report of the study team’s query. Restating the intervention from your EBP question, as the “Intervention” in the summary table, is not useful. Additional details are required.

List findings, or results, from the article that directly answer the EBP question. These should be succinct statements that provide enough information that the reader does not need to return to the original article. Avoid directly copying and pasting from the article. These should be considered the “take-away” points from the evidence that help the team better understand solutions to their given problem.  

These are the measures and/or instruments (e.g., satisfaction surveys, patient interviews, focus groups, validated tools, subscales, biometric data, clinical data) the authors used to determine the answer to the study question or the effectiveness of their intervention. These are not the results of what was measured but rather the tool or approach to quantify or qualify the metric(s) of interest.  

Provide the limitations of the evidence—both as listed by the authors as well as your assessment of any flaws or drawbacks. Consider not only how well the study, project, or review was done, but also how well it was reported. Limitations should be apparent from the team’s appraisal checklists. Keep in mind, some limitations are inherent to the type of evidence and don’t necessarily negate its findings (e.g. lack of control in an observational study).

Record the level of support for decision-making.

Use this section to keep track of items important to the EBP process not captured elsewhere on this tool. Consider items that will be helpful to have easy reference to when conducting the evidence synthesis.

Reviews

Methodology

Design/Approach

Timing

Other

-Systematic with or without meta-analysis

-Integrative

-Rapid

-Umbrella

-Scoping

-Critical

-Literature

Quantitative

Qualitative

Mixed-Methods

Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)

Quasi-experimental

Interventional

Observational (non-experimental)

Descriptive

Correlational

Prospective

Retrospective

Cross-Sectional

Longitudinal

-Expert opinion

-Book chapter

-Position statement

-Case report

-Programmatic experience