ArticleHealth policy and planning2013
Brokering the boundary between science and advocacy: the case of intermittent preventive treatment among infants.
Article in Health policy and planning, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trauma system funding: implications for the surgeon health policy advocate.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2020Article
- When "Good Evidence" Is Not Enough: A Case of Global Malaria Policy Development.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2018Article
- Can the Success of HIV Scale-Up Advance the Global Chronic NCD Agenda?Global heart · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The process of translating research into policy has gained considerable attention in recent years and a number of studies have investigated the nexus between the two 'worlds' of research and policy. One issue that has been little addressed is about the boundaries between research and advocacy: how far scientists do, or should, promote particular findings to policy makers and others. This article analyses a particular intervention in malaria control and the Consortium set up to accelerate its potential implementation. Using a framework that emphasizes the interplay of interests, institutions and ideas, it provides an example of how a network of committed researchers and funders attempted to follow a rational policy process, but faced conflicts and fundamental questions about their roles in generating scientific evidence and influencing global health policy. In an era of ever more and larger researcher groups and consortia, the findings offer insights and lessons to those engaged in the process of knowledge translation.
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.