Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26843853›Full record

ArticleTobacco induced diseases2016

A Delphi study for setting up tobacco research and practice network in India.

Divya Persai, Rajmohan Panda, Ravi Kumar, Andy Mc Ewen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco induced diseases, 2016. 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. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Divya PersaiPublic Health Foundation of India, Delhi NCR, Gurgaon, India.
Rajmohan PandaPublic Health Foundation of India, Delhi NCR, Gurgaon, India.
Ravi KumarPublic Health Foundation of India, Delhi NCR, Gurgaon, India.
Andy Mc EwenPrincipal Research Associate, Epidemiology & Public Health, Institute of Epidemiology & Health, Faculty of Pop Health Sciences, University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are key gaps in the production and dissemination of evidence-based tobacco control research in developing countries. In India, limited research has been made to address and understand the function, constitution, thematic areas of research of a research and practice network in tobacco control. This study aimed to identify priority areas that were agreed by stakeholders for building tobacco research and practice network in India.

methodsThis study used the well-established Delphi survey, which involves asking experts a recurring progression of questions through a series of questionnaires. The study was conducted in two rounds in the year 2013-14. Experts working in tobacco control participated in the study. In Round II, respondents rated agreement using a five-point Likert scale. Interquartile Range (IQR) was used to calculate the strength of the consensus.

resultsExperts expressed strong consensus on tobacco cessation and economic research as a focus areas for tobacco research network in India. Lack of funding was stated as a barrier impeding formation of tobacco research network in India by majority of respondents. A strong consensus was achieved on the fact that network can be sustained financially by Government funds (IQR = 1). Information sharing and capacity building of young researchers were the two major benefits as stated by respondents which achieved strong consensus.

conclusionsThis study produced the first national stakeholder-informed priority area for developing tobacco research and practice network in India. The consensus priorities highlight the most important and urgent needs in developing research and practice network in tobacco control.

Identifiers

PMID26843853
PMCPMC4739090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.