ArticleHealth research policy and systems2009
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 5: Using research evidence to frame options to address a problem.
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 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methods of a multi-faceted rapid knowledge synthesis project to inform the implementation of a new health service model: Collaborative Emergency Centres.Systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis.The Milbank quarterly · 2013Pooled it
- A taxonomy of demand-driven questions for use by evidence producers, intermediaries and decision-makers: results from a cross-sectional survey.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Matching the right study design to decision-maker questions: Results from a Delphi study.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework for evidence to policy networks.Evaluation and program planning · 2022Article
- Pharmaceutical subsidy policy in Iran: a qualitative stakeholder analysis.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Paper 3: Selecting rapid review methods for complex questions related to health policy and system issues.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- "Everyone Has the Right to Drink Beer": A Stakeholder Analysis of Challenges to Youth Alcohol Harm-Reduction Policies in Lebanon.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Developing recommendations for neonatal inpatient care service categories: reflections from the research, policy and practice interface in Kenya.BMJ global health · 2019Article
- When "Good Evidence" Is Not Enough: A Case of Global Malaria Policy Development.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 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
- Using Evidence To Inform Practice and Policy To Enhance the Quality of Care for Persons with Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of neurotrauma · 2017Article
- Exploring the dynamics of food-related policymaking processes and evidence use in Fiji using systems thinking.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- The comprehensive 'Communicate to Vaccinate' taxonomy of communication interventions for childhood vaccination in routine and campaign contexts.BMC public health · 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
- Factors affecting evidence-use in food policy-making processes in health and agriculture in Fiji.BMC public health · 2017Article
- Suggestions for the promotion of evidence-based public health in South Korea.Epidemiology and health · 2017Article
- Knowledge brokering between researchers and policymakers in Fiji to develop policies to reduce obesity: a process evaluation.Implementation science : IS · 2013Article
- Policy development, implementation and evaluation by the AIDS control program in Uganda: a review of the processes.Health research policy and systems · 2013Article
- Knowledge exchange in the Pacific: The TROPIC (Translational Research into Obesity Prevention Policies for Communities) project.BMC public health · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 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. Policymakers and those supporting them may find themselves in one or more of the following three situations that will require them to characterise the costs and consequences of options to address a problem. These are: 1. A decision has already been taken and their role is to maximise the benefits of an option, minimise its harms, optimise the impacts achieved for the money spent, and (if there is substantial uncertainty about the likely costs and consequences of the option) to design a monitoring and evaluation plan, 2. A policymaking process is already underway and their role is to assess the options presented to them, or 3. A policymaking process has not yet begun and their role is therefore to identify options, characterise the costs and consequences of these options, and look for windows of opportunity in which to act. In situations like these, research evidence, particularly about benefits, harms, and costs, can help to inform whether an option can be considered viable. In this article, we suggest six questions that can be used to guide those involved in identifying policy and programme options to address a high-priority problem, and to characterise the costs and consequences of these options. These are: 1. Has an appropriate set of options been identified to address a problem? 2. What benefits are important to those who will be affected and which benefits are likely to be achieved with each option? 3. What harms are important to those who will be affected and which harms are likely to arise with each option? 4. What are the local costs of each option and is there local evidence about their cost-effectiveness? 5. What adaptations might be made to any given option and could they alter its benefits, harms and costs? 6. Which stakeholder views and experiences might influence an option's acceptability and its benefits, harms, and costs?
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.