ArticleHealth research policy and systems2009
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 16: Using research evidence in balancing the pros and cons of policies.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review of interventions for improving the performance of community health workers in low-income and middle-income countries.BMJ open · 2017Pooled it
- Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Institutional roles, structures, funding and research partnerships towards evidence-informed policy-making: a multisector survey among policy-makers in Nigeria.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Developing a workbook to support the contextualisation of global health systems guidance: a case study identifying steps and critical factors for success in this process at WHO.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- An interpretive review of consensus statements on clinical guideline development and their application in the field of traditional and complementary medicine.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2017Review
- Older, vulnerable patient view: a pilot and feasibility study of the patient measure of safety (PMOS) with patients in Australia.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Working at the nexus between public health policy, practice and research. Dynamics of knowledge sharing in The Netherlands.Health research policy and systems · 2012Article
- Knowledge translation of research findings.Implementation science : IS · 2012Article
- Where there is no evidence: use of expert consensus methods to fill the evidence gap in low-income countries and cultural minorities.International journal of mental health systems · 2010Article
- SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP).Health research policy and systems · 2009Article
- SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2009Article
- SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 5: Using research evidence to frame options to address a problem.Health research policy and systems · 2009Article
- SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 12: Finding and using research evidence about resource use and costs.Health research policy and systems · 2009Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article, we address the use of evidence to inform judgements about the balance between the pros and cons of policy and programme options. We suggest five questions that can be considered when making these judgements. These are: 1. What are the options that are being compared? 2. What are the most important potential outcomes of the options being compared? 3. What is the best estimate of the impact of the options being compared for each important outcome? 4. How confident can policymakers and others be in the estimated impacts? 5. Is a formal economic model likely to facilitate decision making?
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.