ArticleHealth research policy and systems2009
SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed policymaking in health 18: Planning monitoring and evaluation 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 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Stakeholders influence to reduce vitamin A deficiency in children aged 15 to 23 months in Iran: an analysis of stakeholders and networking.BMC nutrition · 2025Article
- A framework of evidence-based decision-making in health system management: a best-fit framework synthesis.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022Article
- The proposed need for integrated maternal and child oral health policy: A case of South Africa.Frontiers in oral health · 2022Article
- Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Financing of physical rehabilitation services in Iran: a stakeholder and social network analysis.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Article
- Hepatitis C virus-related policy-making in Iran: a stakeholder and social network analysis.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Swiss Learning Health System: A national initiative to establish learning cycles for continuous health system improvement.Learning health systems · 2018Article
- 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
- A Qualitative Assessment of the Evidence Utilization for Health Policy-Making on the Basis of SUPPORT Tools in a Developing Country.International journal of health policy and management · 2017Article
- 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
- Barriers and Enablers to Enacting Child and Youth Related Injury Prevention Legislation in Canada.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2016Article
- Evidence-informed policy formulation and implementation: a comparative case study of two national policies for improving health and social care in Sweden.Implementation science : IS · 2015Article
- CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS TO CONTROL LEPROSY AND THE PERSPECTIVE OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN BRAZIL: A PRIMER FOR NON-EPIDEMIOLOGISTS.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2015Article
- Article
- Knowledge translation of research findings.Implementation science : IS · 2012Article
- SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP).Health research policy and systems · 2009Article
- SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed policymaking in health 11: Finding and using evidence about local conditions.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
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. The term monitoring is commonly used to describe the process of systematically collecting data to inform policymakers, managers and other stakeholders whether a new policy or programme is being implemented in accordance with their expectations. Indicators are used for monitoring purposes to judge, for example, if objectives are being achieved, or if allocated funds are being spent appropriately. Sometimes the term evaluation is used interchangeably with the term monitoring, but the former usually suggests a stronger focus on the achievement of results. When the term impact evaluation is used, this usually implies that there is a specific attempt to try to determine whether the observed changes in outcomes can be attributed to a particular policy or programme. In this article, we suggest four questions that can be used to guide the monitoring and evaluation of policy or programme options. These are: 1. Is monitoring necessary? 2. What should be measured? 3. Should an impact evaluation be conducted? 4. How should the impact evaluation be done?
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.