ArticleBMC public health2009
Applied public health research -- falling through the cracks?
Article in BMC public health, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the Welsh National Exercise Referral Scheme: protocol for trial and integrated economic and process evaluation.BMC public health · 2010Trial
- Researchers' perspective of real-world impact from UK public health research: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2022Article
- Safety and Health through Integrated, Facilitated Teams (SHIFT): stepped-wedge protocol for prospective, mixed-methods evaluation of the Healthy Workplace Participatory Program.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Prospective Evaluation of Fidelity, Impact and Sustainability of Participatory Workplace Health Teams in Skilled Nursing Facilities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Article
- Assessing the evaluability of complex public health interventions: five questions for researchers, funders, and policymakers.The Milbank quarterly · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a degree of dissonance between the types of evaluative research required by organisations providing or commissioning health care, those recommended by organisations developing evidence-based guidance, and those which research funding bodies are prepared to support.
methodsWe present a case study of efforts to establish a pragmatic but robust evaluation of local exercise referral schemes. We considered the epidemiological, ethical and practical advantages and disadvantages of a number of study designs and applied for research funding based on an uncontrolled design, outlining the difficulties of carrying out a randomised controlled trial to evaluate an existing service.
resultsOur proposal was praised for its relevance and clear patient outcomes, but the application was twice rejected because both funders and reviewers insisted on a randomised controlled trial design, which we had found to be impractical, unacceptable to service users and potentially unethical.
conclusionThe case study highlights continuing challenges for applied public health research in the current funding climate.
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.