Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11726367›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health2001

Can public health researchers and agencies reconcile the push from funding bodies and the pull from communities?

L W Green, S L Mercer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 134 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
134citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

134 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Participation and co-creation in implementation research].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. [Research project EUBeKo].Pravention und Gesundheitsforderung · 2023
    Article

74 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

L W GreenOffice on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341-3724, USA. lgreen@cdc.gov
S L Mercer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Responding to growing impatience with the limited application of research findings to health practices and policies, both funding bodies and communities are demanding that research show greater sensitivity to communities' perceptions, needs, and unique circumstances. One way to assure this is to employ participatory research-to engage communities at least in formulating research questions and interpreting and applying research findings and possibly also in selecting methods and analyzing data. "Community" should be interpreted broadly as all who will be affected by the research results, including lay residents of a local area, practitioners, service agencies, and policymakers. Participatory research should not be required of every project, but when results are to be used for, in, and by communities, those communities should collaborate not only in applying findings but also in determining the ways in which the findings are produced and interpreted.

Indexed as

Community-Institutional RelationsHealth Care RationingResearch DesignHumansPublic Health PracticeUnited StatesHealth Care and Public Health

Identifiers

PMID11726367
PMCPMC1446906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.