ArticleAmerican journal of public health2013
Improving utility of evidence synthesis for healthy public policy: the three Rs (relevance, rigor, and readability [and resources]).
Article in American journal of public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 5 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies.Open research Europe · 2021Pooled it
- Taxation of unprocessed sugar or sugar-added foods for reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Welfare-to-work interventions and their effects on the mental and physical health of lone parents and their children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Welfare-to-work interventions and their effects on the mental and physical health of lone parents and their children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Scope and quality of Cochrane reviews of nutrition interventions: a cross-sectional study.Nutrition journal · 2017Pooled it
- Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Article
- Do evidence summaries increase health policy-makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Taking knowledge users' knowledge needs into account in health: an evidence synthesis framework.Health policy and planning · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Systematic reviews have the potential to promote knowledge exchange between researchers and decision-makers. Review planning requires engagement with evidence users to ensure preparation of relevant reviews, and well-conducted reviews should provide accessible and reliable synthesis to support decision-making. Yet, systematic reviews are not routinely referred to by decision-makers, and innovative approaches to improve the utility of reviews is needed. Evidence synthesis for healthy public policy is typically complex and methodologically challenging. Although not lessening the value of reviews, these challenges can be overwhelming and threaten their utility. Using the interrelated principles of relevance, rigor, and readability, and in light of available resources, this article considers how utility of evidence synthesis for healthy public policy might be improved.
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.