Abstract
Introduction: There is a great need for analytic techniques that allow for the synthesis of learning across seemingly idiosyncratic interventions. Objectives: The primary objective of this paper is to introduce taxonomic meta-analysis and explain how it is different from conventional meta-analysis. Results: Conventional meta-analysis has previously been used to examine the effectiveness of childhood obesity prevention interventions. However, these tend to examine narrowly defined sections of obesity prevention initiatives, and as such, do not allow the field to draw conclusions across settings, participants, or subjects. Compared with conventional meta-analysis, taxonomic meta-analysis widens the aperture of what can be examined to synthesize evidence across interventions with diverse topics, goals, research designs, and settings. A component approach is employed to examine interventions at the level of their essential features or activities to identify the concrete aspects of interventions that are used (intervention components), characteristics of the intended populations (target population or intended recipient characteristics), and facets of the environments in which they operate (contextual elements), and the relationship of these components to effect size. In addition, compared with conventional meta-analysis methods, taxonomic meta-analyses can include the results of natural experiments, policy initiatives, program implementation efforts and highly controlled experiments (as examples) regardless of the design of the report being analyzed as long as the intended outcome is the same. It also characterizes the domain of interventions that have been studied. Conclusion: Taxonomic meta-analysis can be a powerful tool for summarizing the evidence that exists and for generating hypotheses that are worthy of more rigorous testing.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Journal | Childhood Obesity |
| Volume | 16 |
| Issue number | S2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Sep 2020 |
Funding
The research reported in this article was supported by the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under contract number GS-00F-0007M. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the NIH or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This work is a collaborative effort between Mission Measurement and the National Collaborative on Childhood Obesity Research (NCCOR). It was funded by Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research, National Institutes of Health, and guided by members of NCCOR. The four organizations represented in NCCOR are: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); National Institutes of Health (NIH); Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF); and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Members of the NCCOR Childhood Obesity Evidence Base (COEB) project Working Group include Sonia Arteaga, Christine Hunter, Young Jo, Laura Kettel Khan, and Deborah Young-Hyman. Members of the COEB External Expert Panel (EEP) include Leann Birch, John Cawley, Jamie Chriqui, Angie Cradock, Christina Econ-omos, Debra Haire-Joshu, Shiriki Kumanyika, Bruce Lee, Lorrene Ritchie, Thomas Robinson, and Marlene Schwartz. We are grateful to the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Research Methods Team, especially Melissa M. Feulner, Brittany L. Balletto, and Julie DeCosta for their efforts on this project. This Childhood Obesity Supplement is dedicated to Dr. Leann L. Birch, who passed May 26, 2019, for a life’s work devoted to childhood nutrition and health.
Keywords
- interventions
- meta-analysis
- methods
- prevention
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Nutrition and Dietetics
- Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
- Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
