ReviewGlobal heart2015
Appraising the evidence for public health policy components using the quality and impact of component evidence assessment.
Review in Global heart, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Activities used by evidence networks to promote evidence-informed decision-making in the health sector- a rapid evidence review.BMC health services research · 2024Review
- Review
- Evidence-Based Policy Making for Public Health Interventions in Cardiovascular Diseases: Formally Assessing the Feasibility of Clinical Trials.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2020Article
- Doing More with More: How "Early" Evidence Can Inform Public Policies.Public administration review · 2017Article
- A Scan of CDC-Authored Articles on Legal Epidemiology, 2011-2015.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) · 2016Article
- Do State Community Health Worker Laws Align with Best Available Evidence?Journal of community health · 2016Article
- Translating Workforce Development Policy Interventions for Community Health Workers: Application of a Policy Research Continuum.Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMPArticle
- Bringing Rigor to the Use of Evidence in Policy Making: Translating Early Evidence.Public administration reviewArticle
- Advancing Evidence-Based Public Health Policy: How Core Component Thinking Can Illuminate the Multilevel Nature of Public Health Policy.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Review
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
Abstract
An essential strategy expected to reduce the global burden of chronic and cardiovascular disease is evidence-based policy. However, it is often unknown what specific components should constitute an evidence-based policy intervention. We have developed an expedient method to appraise and compare the strengths of the evidence bases suggesting that individual components of a policy intervention will contribute to the positive public health impact of that intervention. Using a new definition of "best available evidence," the Quality and Impact of Component (QuIC) Evidence Assessment analyzes dimensions of evidence quality and evidence of public health impact to categorize multiple policy component evidence bases along a continuum of "emerging," "promising impact," "promising quality," and "best." QuIC was recently applied to components from 2 policy interventions to prevent and improve the outcomes of cardiovascular disease: public-access defibrillation and community health workers. Results illustrate QuIC's utility in international policy practice and research.
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.