Applicability This component addresses whether the evidence base is relevant to the Australian context, or to specific settings (such as rural areas or cities). Factors that may reduce the direct application of study findings to the Australian context or specific local settings include organisational factors (e.g. availability of trained staff) and cultural factors (e.g. attitudes to health issues, including those that may affect compliance). High applicability Directly applicable to Applicable to the Applicable to the Low applicability the Australian Australian context Australian context Not applicable to the context with few caveats with some caveats Australian context Ranking the evidence On balance, this next step takes into account the considerations of the strength of the evidence (quantity and risk of bias, quantity of evidence and level of evidence), consistency, generalisability and applicability. The total body of the evidence is then ranked into one of four categories: and Supported’ (see Figure 1). ‘Supported’, ‘Promising’, ‘Unknown’ ‘Not Agreement on ranking is sought between all three independent raters. Figure 1: Categories within the intervention ranking system SUPPORTED PROMISING UNKNOWN NOT SUPPORTED Clear, consistent Evidence Insufficient Clear, consistent evidence of suggestive of evidence of evidence of no beneficial effect beneficial effect beneficial effect effect or negative / but further and further harmful effect research required research is required
Applicability This component addresses whether the evidence base is relevant to the Australian context, or to specific settings (such as rural areas or cities). Factors that may reduce the direct application of study findings to the Australian context or specific local settings include organisational factors (e.g. availability of trained staff) and cultural factors (e.g. attitudes to health issues, including those that may affect compliance). High applicability Directly applicable to the Australian context Applicable to the Australian context with few caveats Applicable to the Australian context with some caveats Low applicability Not applicable to the Australian context Ranking the evidence On balance, this next step takes into account the considerations of the strength of the evidence (quantity and risk of bias, quantity of evidence and level of evidence), consistency, generalisability and applicability. The total body of the evidence is then ranked into one of four categories: ‘Supported’, ‘Promising’, ‘Unknown’ and ‘Not Supported’ (see Figure 1). Agreement on ranking is sought between all three independent raters. Figure 1: Categories within the intervention ranking system SUPPORTED Clear, consistent evidence of beneficial effect PROMISING Evidence suggestive of beneficial effect but further research required UNKNOWN Insufficient evidence of beneficial effect and further research is required NOT SUPPORTED Clear, consistent evidence of no effect or negative / harmful effect