Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23618053›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2012

Epilogue: a critical look at a nascent field.

Louise Potvin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Focus on methods key for advancing population health intervention research.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2013
    Article
  2. Let's talk about PHIR.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Louise PotvinDépartement de médecine sociale et préventive, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC. louise.potvin@umontreal.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A broad coalition of partners, entitled PHIRIC (Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada), are working to increase the amount/quality of population health intervention research (PHIR) in our country. A central theme is to advance the science in this area. The current CJPH Supplement is welcomed as a set of diverse studies done to further our understanding of PHIR. The papers illustrate the range of questions that can be addressed and the variety of methods that need to be utilized. There is a need for critical reflection on three questions: 1) what constitutes PHIR? 2) which intervention parameters can be researched? and 3) what methods are recognized by the research community? Although legitimate attempts to define PHIR exist, the boundaries remain elusive. (Even the choice of articles in the current Supplement might be questioned.) It has cogently been argued that 'true' public health interventions intend to change risk conditions and alter distributions of health risk. This commentary suggests an important amendment to prior evaluation questions in stating that PHIR must pay attention to how intervention outcomes are distributed. There are also questions inherent in assessing the equity and distribution of an outcome. The bottom line is that we need to spread the word: more research is needed.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchPublic Health PracticeCanadaHumans

Identifiers

PMID23618053
PMCPMC6973550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.