ArticleHealth research policy and systems2009
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review.
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 49 papers, 12 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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Primary-level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low- and middle-income countries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies in primary care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability.Systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Health professional-delivered obesity prevention interventions during the first 1,000 days: A systematic review of external validity reporting.HRB open research · 2019Pooled it
- Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Putting research in place: an innovative approach to providing contextualized evidence synthesis for decision makers.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Interventions for promoting reintegration and reducing harmful behaviour and lifestyles in street-connected children and young people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of lay health worker programmes to improve access to maternal and child health: qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis.The Milbank quarterly · 2013Pooled it
- Completeness of reporting of setting and health worker cadre among trials on antenatal iron and folic acid supplementation in pregnancy: an assessment based on two Cochrane reviews.Systematic reviews · 2013Pooled 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
- Mapping evidence for health policy and systems decision-making: a spectrum approach bridging tacit and scientific knowledge across local and global contexts.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making.Implementation science : IS · 2024Review
- Article
- Decision-makers' experiences with rapid evidence summaries to support real-time evidence informed decision-making in crises: a mixed methods study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Characteristics of the sources, evaluation, and grading of the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews in public health: A methodological study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Economic Aspects of Delivering Primary Care Services: An Evidence Synthesis to Inform Policy and Research Priorities.The Milbank quarterly · 2021Article
- Towards greater understanding of implementation during systematic reviews of complex healthcare interventions: the framework for implementation transferability applicability reporting (FITAR).BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Taking account of context in systematic reviews and guidelines considering a complexity perspective.BMJ global health · 2019Article
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. Differences between health systems may often result in a policy or programme option that is used in one setting not being feasible or acceptable in another. Or these differences may result in an option not working in the same way in another setting, or even achieving different impacts in another setting. A key challenge that policymakers and those supporting them must face is therefore the need to understand whether research evidence about an option can be applied to their setting. Systematic reviews make this task easier by summarising the evidence from studies conducted in a variety of different settings. Many systematic reviews, however, do not provide adequate descriptions of the features of the actual settings in which the original studies were conducted. In this article, we suggest questions to guide those assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review to a specific setting. These are: 1. Were the studies included in a systematic review conducted in the same setting or were the findings consistent across settings or time periods? 2. Are there important differences in on-the-ground realities and constraints that might substantially alter the feasibility and acceptability of an option? 3. Are there important differences in health system arrangements that may mean an option could not work in the same way? 4. Are there important differences in the baseline conditions that might yield different absolute effects even if the relative effectiveness was the same? 5. What insights can be drawn about options, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation? Even if there are reasonable grounds for concluding that the impacts of an option might differ in a specific setting, insights can almost always be drawn from a systematic review about possible options, as well as approaches to the implementation of options and to monitoring and evaluation.
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.