Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27239873›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2016

Advancing Global Health - The Need for (Better) Social Science Comment on "Navigating Between Stealth Advocacy and Unconscious Dogmatism: The Challenge of Researching the Norms, Politics and Power of Global Health".

Johanna Hanefeld

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Johanna HanefeldLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In his perspective "Navigating between stealth advocacy and unconscious dogmatism: the challenge of researching the norms, politics and power of global health," Ooms argues that actions taken in the field of global health are dependent not only on available resources, but on the normative premise that guides how these resources are spent. This comment sets out how the application of a predominately biomedical positivist research tradition in global health, has potentially limited understanding of the value judgements underlying decisions in the field. To redress this critical social science, including health policy analysis has much to offer, to the field of global health including on questions of governance.

Indexed as

Global HealthPoliticsHealth PolicyHumansPolicy MakingPower, PsychologicalResearchScienceSocial NormsSocial SciencesGlobal HealthGovernanceHealth Policy AnalysisPowerSocial Science

Identifiers

PMID27239873
PMCPMC4818996

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.