Jan M Stratil

Dr. Jan M Stratil


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

25Years (2002-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
15 September 2021 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JSJan M Stratil
Jan M Stratil
RBRenke L Biallas
Renke L Biallas
JBJacob Burns
Jacob Burns
LALaura Arnold
Laura Arnold
KGKarin Geffert
Karin Geffert
AMAni Movsisyan
Ani Movsisyan

31 January 2022 in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BMBiljana Meshkovska
Biljana Meshkovska
DSDaniel A. Scheller
Daniel A. Scheller
JWJanine Wendt
Janine Wendt
HJHannah Jilani
Hannah Jilani
MSMarie Scheidmeir
Marie Scheidmeir
OCon behalf of the PEN Consortium
on behalf of the PEN Consortium
Background: Although children’s intake of fruit and vegetables has seen a recent rise, almost half of adolescents do not eat even one piece of fruit or vegetables per day. One way to address this problem is through interventions that provide fruit and vegetables directly to children in kindergartens and schools. For such interventions to meet their intended goals, what is important to consider in addition to impact is implementation. Our objective is to systematically review qualitative results reporting on the determinants (barriers and facilitators) to implementation of interventions that entail direct provision of fruit and vegetables in kindergarten and school settings and conduct a framework analysis of those results using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Methods: A systematic search was designed and run in November 2019 for: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsychINFO (Ovid), ERIC (Ovid), Cochrane Library Reviews and Cochrane Library Trials. A keyword search of the journal Implementation Science was completed. Screening of titles and abstracts (n = 5427) and full texts (n = 227), led to 14 included articles. Coding and analysis were done using the framework method and CFIR. Results: The following CFIR constructs were found relevant: 1) intervention characteristics domain: ‘design quality and packaging’, ‘adaptability’ ‘cost’; 2) outer setting: ‘cosmopolitanism’, ‘external policy and incentives’ ‘patients’ needs and resources’; 3) inner setting: ‘implementation climate’, ‘readiness for implementation’ and ‘structural characteristics’; 4) characteristics of individuals: ‘individual stage of change’, ‘knowledge and beliefs about the intervention’ 5) process: ‘engaging’, ‘executing’ and ‘reflecting and evaluating’. The review stresses the dual role of parents as both supporting the implementation and targets of the intervention, which could have implications for the design and implementation of future fruit and vegetables interventions. Positive child perceptions of the value of the intervention and perceived behavior change due to the intervention were reported as relevant facilitators to implementation across several studies, and should be taken into consideration in future design efforts. Conclusions: CFIR offers a systematic way to identify and organize barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in the kindergarten and school setting. Revisions are encouraged to allow adequate space for perceptions of various implementation actors and the target group. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020167697.

11 February 2020 in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JSJan M Stratil
Jan M Stratil
RBR. Baltussen
R. Baltussen
ISI. Scheel
I. Scheel
ANA. Nacken
A. Nacken
ERE. A. Rehfuess
E. A. Rehfuess
Background: Decision-making in public health and health policy is complex and requires careful deliberation of many and sometimes conflicting normative and technical criteria. Several approaches and tools, such as multi-criteria decision analysis, health technology assessments and evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks, have been proposed to guide decision-makers in selecting the criteria most relevant and appropriate for a transparent decision-making process. This study forms part of the development of the WHO-INTEGRATE EtD framework, a framework rooted in global health norms and values as reflected in key documents of the World Health Organization and the United Nations system. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of criteria used in or proposed for real-world decision-making processes, including guideline development, health technology assessment, resource allocation and others.Methods: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews through a combination of systematic literature searches and extensive reference searches. Systematic reviews reporting criteria used for real-world health decision-making by governmental or non-governmental organization on a supranational, national, or programme level were included and their quality assessed through a bespoke critical appraisal tool. The criteria reported in the reviews were extracted, de-duplicated and sorted into first-level (i.e.criteria), second-level (i.e.sub-criteria) and third-level (i.e.decision aspects) categories. First-level categories were developed a priori using a normative approach; second- and third-level categories were developed inductively.Results: We included 36 systematic reviews providing criteria, of which one met all and another eleven met at least five of the items of our critical appraisal tool. The criteria were subsumed into 8criteria,45sub-criteriaand 200decision aspects. The first-level of the category system comprised the following seven substantive criteria: “Health-related balance of benefits and harms”; “Human and individual rights”; “Acceptability considerations”; “Societal considerations”; “Considerations of equity, equality and fairness”; “Cost and financial considerations”; and “Feasibility and health system considerations”. In addition, we identified an eight criterion “Evidence”.Conclusion: This overview of systematic reviews provides a comprehensive overview of criteria used or suggested for real-world health decision-making. It also discusses key challenges in the selection of the most appropriate criteria and in seeking to implement a fair decision-making process.

24 November 2020 in BMJ Global Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JSJan M Stratil
Jan M Stratil
MVMaike Voss
Maike Voss
LALaura Arnold
Laura Arnold
Introduction: Public health decision-making requires the balancing of numerous, often conflicting factors. However, participatory, evidence-informed decision-making processes to identify and weigh these factors are often not possible- especially, in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While evidence-to-decision frameworks are not able or intended to replace stakeholder participation, they can serve as a tool to approach relevancy and comprehensiveness of the criteria considered. Objective: To develop a decision-making framework adapted to the challenges of decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions to contain the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods: We employed the ‘best fit’ framework synthesis technique and used the WHO-INTEGRATE framework as a starting point. First, we adapted the framework through brainstorming exercises and application to case studies. Next, we conducted a content analysis of comprehensive strategy documents intended to guide policymakers on the phasing out of applied lockdown measures in Germany. Based on factors and criteria identified in this process, we developed the WICID (WHO-INTEGRATE COVID-19) framework version 1.0. Results: Twelve comprehensive strategy documents were analysed. The revised framework consists of 11+1 criteria, supported by 48 aspects, and embraces a complex systems perspective. The criteria cover implications for the health of individuals and populations due to and beyond COVID-19, infringement on liberties and fundamental human rights, acceptability and equity considerations, societal, environmental and economic implications, as well as implementation, resource and feasibility considerations. Discussion: The proposed framework will be expanded through a comprehensive document analysis focusing on key stakeholder groups across the society. The WICID framework can be a tool to support comprehensive evidence-informed decision-making processes.

24 March 2025 in Current Environmental Health Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LSLena van Selm
Lena van Selm
SWSarah Williams
Sarah Williams
FDFrancesca K De' Donato
Francesca K De' Donato
EBErica Briones-Vozmediano
Erica Briones-Vozmediano
JSJan M Stratil
Jan M Stratil
ARAna Requena-Méndez
Ana Requena-Méndez
Purpose of review: Migrant and ethnic minority (MEM) outdoor workers might be at increased risk for heat-related illnesses (HRI), due to environmental exposures, heavy physical work, limited control over workplace conditions and language and cultural barriers. This review aims to synthesize the literature on health impacts of occupational heat exposure among MEM outdoor workers, including risk factors, heat-related perception and behaviour and healthcare utilization. Recent findings: Seventy-six publications were included. Most were conducted in the US, where the weighted prevalence for at least one HRI symptom was 48.8%. These numbers were higher in most non-US countries. On average, in the US, 60.9% reported being concerned about heat and 60.4% having had HRI training. Many workers reported drinking more water when hot (91.7%) and feeling comfortable taking water breaks (92%) while fewer reported acclimatizing at the start of the season (43.7%) or changing working hours (34%) or activities (32.2%) due to heat. Qualitative studies reported reasons for working faster with less breaks, including fear of losing work and earning more when getting paid by the piece. Data on access to healthcare was limited. Summary: While research advances on MEM workers´ heat-related vulnerability, risk factors and healthcare utilization, there is a need to strengthen prevention efforts to reduce the burden of heat in this population.

9 July 2018 in Health Research Policy and Systems
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LBLaura K. Busert
Laura K. Busert
MMMargot Mütsch
Margot Mütsch
CKChristina Kien
Christina Kien
AFAline Flatz
Aline Flatz
UGUrsula Griebler
Ursula Griebler
EREva Rehfuess
Eva Rehfuess
Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for public health decision-making, but length and technical jargon tend to hinder their use. In non-English speaking countries, inaccessibility of information in the native language often represents an additional barrier. In line with our vision to strengthen evidence-based public health in the German-speaking world, we developed a German language summary format for systematic reviews of public health interventions and undertook user-testing with public health decision-makers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. We used several guiding principles and core elements identified from the literature to produce a prototype summary format and applied it to a Cochrane review on the impacts of changing portion and package sizes on selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco. Following a pre-test in each of the three countries, we carried out 18 user tests with public health decision-makers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland using the ‘think-aloud’ method. We analysed participants’ comments according to the facets credibility, usability, understandability, usefulness, desirability, findability, identification and accessibility. We also identified elements that hindered the facile and satisfying use of the summary format, and revised it based on participants’ feedback. The summary format was well-received; participants particularly appreciated receiving information in their own language. They generally found the summary format useful and a credible source of information, but also signalled several barriers to a positive user experience such as an information-dense structure and difficulties with understanding statistical terms. Many of the identified challenges were addressed through modifications of the summary format, in particular by allowing for flexible length, placing more emphasis on key messages and relevance for public health practice, expanding the interpretation aid for statistical findings, providing a glossary of technical terms, and only including graphical GRADE ratings. Some barriers to uptake, notably the participants’ wish for actionable recommendations and contextual information, could not be addressed. Participants welcomed the initiative, but user tests also revealed their problems with understanding and interpreting the findings summarised in our prototype format. The revised summary format will be used to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews of public health interventions.