Turley_2013 - Slumupgrading strategies involving physical environment and infrastructure interventions and their effects on health and socio-economic outcomes (Protocol)

Basic Article Info:

Article key Turley_2013
Title Slumupgrading strategies involving physical environment and infrastructure interventions and their effects on health and socio-economic outcomes (Protocol)
Year 2013
Review type systematic review
Main topic Effectiveness of slum upgrading strategies on health and quality of life
Subjects area(s) Buildings, construction and facilities, Social and behavioural, Economy and finance, Health and well-being
Built environment scale Urban area / Urban system
Application(s) Policy making, Implementation, Evaluation
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used no
Study focus start not mentioned
Study focus end not mentioned
Search string (TITLE-ABS-KEY(slum OR slumsOR shantyOR shantiesOR shantyhouse*OR barrioOR barriosOR favela*OR kampung OR tugurio* OR ghetto OR ghettos OR bidon OR bidons OR bidonville*)) #2 (TITLE-ABS-KEY((informal W/2 shack*) OR (informal W/2 housing) OR (informal W/2 settlement*) OR (irregular W/2 settlement*) OR (illegal W/2 settlement*) OR (informal W/2 tenement*) OR (irregular W/2 tenement*) OR (squatter W/2 settlement*) OR (squatter W/2 area*) OR (illegal W/2 tenement*))) #3 (TITLE-ABS-KEY(“public squalor” OR “public squalor” OR “squalid housing” OR “squalid accommodation” OR “human settlement development”OR “urban poor”)) #4 (TITLE-ABS-KEY(“cardboard cit*” OR “tenement district*” OR “tenement hous*” OR “rundown neighborhood*” OR “rundown neighbourhood*” OR “rundown settlement*”)) #5 (TITLE-ABS-KEY(lahbach OR elendsviertelOR brarekOR foundouks OR tanake OR aashwa* OR truschobiOR taudis OR morro OR loteamento OR comunidade OR ahata OR katra OR watta OR jhopadpatti OR umjondolo OR mabanda OR kijiji OR barraca* OR conventillos)) #6 (TITLE-ABS-KEY(“kartonsko naselje”OR“habitat precaire”OR“habitat spontane”OR“quartier irregulier”OR“asentamiento irregular” OR “colonia popular” OR “villa* miseria” OR “ciudad perdida” OR “edina achouaia” OR “mudal safi” OR “pelli gewal”)) #7 (TITLE-ABS-KEY(bustee* OR gecekondu* OR chawls* OR basti ORmasseque* OR “squatter cit*”OR “katchi abadi*” OR dharavi OR kibera OR “cite soleil” OR khayelitshaOR “orangi town”)) #8 (TITLE-ABS-KEY(“informal shack*” OR “irregular shack*” OR “illegal shack*” OR “shack dweller*” OR “shackdweller*” OR “shack town*” OR “skid row” OR “urban blight” OR squatter camp* OR shack settlement* OR arrabal OR asentamiento* OR campamento* OR cantegril* OR comuna OR comunas OR “ Pueblos jóvene*” OR barriada* OR “Poblacion callampa” OR tugurio OR precario OR chacarita OR tent cit* OR informal cit* OR imijondolo* OR migrant camp* OR migrant settlement* OR refugee camp* OR refugee settlement*)
No. of original sources not mentioned
Synthesis method qualitative
Quantitative map included no
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments There is no conclusion or way forward part in this paper.

 

Details about searches

Search sources
Search source name Source type Comments Weblink
Scopus Online Database Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed research literature. With over 22,000 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers. https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic
Keywords used in search Communities , Governance , Health, Infrastructure, Physical Environment , Slum upgradation , Socio-economic , Urban Policy , Well being

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Ruth Turley* turleyrl@cardiff.ac.uk, TurleyRL@cf.ac.uk Support Unit for Research Evidence (SURE), Information Services, Cardiff University, Cardiff Cardiff, UK United Kingdom
Ruhi Saith Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Advanced Study, JawaharlalNehruUniversity, NewDelhi India
Nandita Bhan 3Department of Society,Human Development andHealth,Harvard School of Public Health Boston,USA United States of America
Eva Rehfuess Institute forMedical Informatics,Biometry andEpidemiology,Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich Munich Germany
Ben Carter NorthWales Centre for Primary Care Research, Bangor University Wrexham United Kingdom

 

Funding

Funding sources
Funding source Address Country Funded year Comments
Cochrane Public Health Group St Albans House 57-59 Haymarket London United Kingdom


Article publication information:

Article type Article
Article category Text
Geographical scale International
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2013-01-31
Edition
Issue
Journal
Pagination
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume
Website owner
Copyrights of article The Cochrane Collaboration
Licences of article Open Access:
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010067.pub2.Copyright


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. general but concrete description of aims
QA question 2 Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. Protocol published in 2012 in Cochrane Database; deviations from the protocol explained
QA question 3 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 1 = “Yes” = explicit justification of the study designs/types included in the review. RCTs including, cluster RCTs; quasi-RCTs, cluster quasi-RCTs; controlled before and after studies (CBAs), cluster CBAs; interrupted time series (ITS); justified
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 1 = “Yes” = searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question), provided key word and/or search strategy, justified publication restrictions (e.g. language), AND searched the reference lists / bibliographies of included studies, searched trial/study registries, included/consulted content experts in the field, where relevant, searched for grey literature, conducted search within 24 months of completion of the review. 28 databases + "Snowballing techniques included searching websites, journal handsearching, contacting authors and reference list checking"
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 1 = “Yes” = either ONE of the following: at least two reviewers independently agreed on selection of eligible studies and achieved consensus on which studies to include OR two reviewers selected a sample of eligible studies and achieved good agreement (at least 80%), with the remainder selected by one reviewer. Two independent reviewers involved
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 1 = “Yes” = either ONE of the following: at least two reviewers achieved consensus on which data to extract from included studies OR two reviewers extracted data from a sample of eligible studies and achieved good agreement (at least 8 %), with the remainder extracted by one reviewer. Two independent reviewers involved
QA question 7 Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 1 = “Yes” = provided a list of all potentially relevant studies that were read in full-text form but excluded from the review AND justified the exclusion from the review of each potentially relevant study. p90-92
QA question 8 Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 1 = “Yes” = ALL the following: Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described in detail. p54-92
QA question 9 Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 1 = “Yes” = specifically mentions RoB assessment of individual included studies. Graphical Appraisal Tool for Epidemiological studies (GATE) and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC), RoB
QA question 10 Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 1 = “Yes” = Must have reported on the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. Note: Stating that the reviewers looked for this information but it was not reported by study authors, also qualifies. p54-92
QA question 11 If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 12 If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 13 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = included only low risk of bias studies OR the review provided a discussion of the likely impact of RoB on the results. very thorough
QA question 14 Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. general discussion
QA question 15 If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 16 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 1 = “Yes” = The authors reported no competing interests OR the authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. both conflict of interests and funding statements provided (p138-139)
Quality index Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. A full protocol, comprehensive methods, results, discussion
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. systematic review N/A
Risk of bias level How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? low full protocol, detailed methods, results, discussion; great care to avoid and acknowledge potential biases