Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26927591›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2015

Policies and Processes for Social Inclusion: Using EquiFrame and EquIPP for Policy Dialogue Comment on "Are Sexual and Reproductive Health Policies Designed for All? Vulnerable Groups in Policy Documents of Four European Countries and Their Involvement in Policy Development".

Malcolm MacLachlan, Hasheem Mannan, Tessy Huss, Alister Munthali, Mutamad Amin

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Malcolm MacLachlanCentre for Global Health, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Hasheem MannanCentre for Global Health, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Tessy HussCentre for Global Health, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Alister MunthaliCentre for Social Research, Chancellor College, Zomba, Malawi.
Mutamad AminAhfad University for Women, Omdurman, Sudan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The application of EquiFrame in the analysis of sexual and reproductive health policies by Ivanova et al to a new thematic area, their selection of only some of the Core Concepts of human rights in health service provision and the addition of new vulnerable groups relevant to the purpose of their analysis, are all very welcome developments. We also applaud their application of EquiFrame to policies in countries where it has not previously been used, along with their use of interviews with policy-makers to produce a deeper understanding of policy processes. We argue that clear justification for the inclusion of additional, or replacement of some exiting vulnerable groups within EquiFrame should be accompanied by clear definitions of such groups, along with the evidence-base that justifies their classification as a vulnerable or marginalised group. To illustrate the versatility of EquiFrame, we summarise a range of ways in which it has been used across a number of regions; including a brief Case Study of its use to develop the National Health Policy of Malawi. While EquiFrame focuses on policy content, we preview a new policy analysis tool - Equity and Inclusion in Policy Processes (EquIPP) - which assesses the extent of equity and inclusion in broader policy processes. Together, EquiFrame and EquIPP can be used to help governments and civil society ensure that policies are addressing the much stronger emphasis on social inclusion, now apparent in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Indexed as

Policy MakingReproductive HealthAdministrative PersonnelDeveloping CountriesGlobal HealthHealthHealth PolicyHealth ServicesHuman RightsHumansPolicyPoliticsPublic PolicyReproductive RightsSouth AfricaUnited NationsEquiFrameEquity and Inclusion in Policy Processes (EquIPP)Human RightsPolicy Analysis

Identifiers

PMID26927591
PMCPMC4770926

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.