A Comparison of a Vote Count and a Meta-Analysis Review of Intervention Research with Adult Cancer Patients

Julie Cwikel, Lynn Behar, June Rabson-Hare

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

22 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: This study compares the utility of two methods of knowledge utilization in social work intervention: vote count review and meta-analysis. Methods: Using the two methods, the authors reviewed 40 intervention studies with adult cancer patients that used treatment techniques common in social work. The common research question was, which treatments are the most effective with cancer patients, differentiated by disease phase and type of diagnosis? Results: By both methods of review, interventions were shown to be most common and effective at the treatment phase, and cognitive-behavioral methods showed the most consistently positive effects. Correlations between the vote count and meta-analysis results showed that the outcome score given in the vote count was very strongly correlated with the average effect size from the meta-analysis Conclusions: Vote count is a relatively simple method of knowledge utilization, whereas metaanalysis requires careful explanation of the discretionary steps taken in analysis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)139-158
Number of pages20
JournalResearch on Social Work Practice
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2000

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Psychology (all)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Comparison of a Vote Count and a Meta-Analysis Review of Intervention Research with Adult Cancer Patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this