ReviewJournal of epidemiology and community health2004
Enhancing the evidence base for health impact assessment.
Review in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis.The Milbank quarterly · 2013Pooled it
- Predicted and observed impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns: two Health Impact Assessments in Scotland and Wales.Health promotion international · 2022Article
- Using health impact assessment (HIA) to understand the wider health and well-being implications of policy decisions: the COVID-19 'staying at home and social distancing policy' in Wales.BMC public health · 2021Article
- A NEIGHBORHOOD-LEVEL POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACT SCORING TOOL TO SUPPORT LOCAL-LEVEL HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENTS.Cities & health · 2020Article
- Citizen Science for public health.Health promotion international · 2018Article
- Assessing the health impact of transnational corporations: its importance and a framework.Globalization and health · 2016Article
- Health effects of home energy efficiency interventions in England: a modelling study.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Corporate coalitions and policy making in the European Union: how and why British American Tobacco promoted "Better Regulation".Journal of health politics, policy and law · 2015Article
- Examining the potential contribution of social theory to developing and supporting Australian Indigenous-mainstream health service partnerships.International journal for equity in health · 2014Review
- When climate change couples social neglect: malaria dynamics in Panamá.Emerging microbes & infections · 2014Article
- Improving the use of evidence in health impact assessment.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2010Article
- Vision for a global registry of anticipated public health studies.American journal of public health · 2007Article
- Growing the field of health impact assessment in the United States: an agenda for research and practice.American journal of public health · 2006Article
- Health impact assessment.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2005Article
- Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 2. Best available evidence: how low should you go?Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2005Article
- Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 1. Finding the evidence: how far should you go?Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2005Article
- Can scientists and policy makers work together?Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2005Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health impact assessment differs from other purposes for which evidence is collated in a number of ways, including:the focus on complex interventions or policy and their diverse effects on determinants of health;the need for evidence on the reversibility of adverse factors damaging to health;the diversity of the evidence in terms of relevant disciplines, study designs, quality criteria and sources of information;the broad range of stakeholders involved;the short timescale and limited resources generally available;the pragmatic need to inform decision makers regardless of the quality of the evidence. These have implications for commissioning and conducting reviews. Methods must be developed to: facilitate comprehensive searching across a broad range of disciplines and information sources; collate appropriate quality criteria to assess a range of study designs; synthesise different kinds of evidence; and facilitate timely stakeholder involvement. Good practice standards for reviews are needed to reduce the risk of poor quality recommendations. Advice to decision makers must make explicit limitations resulting from absent, conflicting, or poor quality evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.