ArticleInternational journal of public health2017
A tool for exploring the dynamics of innovative interventions for public health: the critical event card.
Article in International journal of public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The integration of human and non-human actors to advance healthcare delivery: unpacking the role of actor-network theory, a systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective: A systematic review and framework for public health evaluators.PLoS medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Les pratiques de l'action intersectorielle locale pour l'équité en santé : étude du casGlobal health promotion · 2024Article
- Untangling the complex implementation process of community-based health promotion: a multiple-case study in the Netherlands.Health promotion international · 2024Article
- Evaluation proposal of a national community-based obesity prevention programme: a novel approach considering the complexity perspective.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2022Article
- The use of critical incident technique in population health intervention research: lessons learned.International journal of public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPublic health interventions are increasingly represented as complex systems. Research tools for capturing the dynamic of interventions processes, however, are practically non-existent. This paper describes the development and proof of concept process of an analytical tool, the critical event card (CEC), which supports the representation and analysis of complex interventions' evolution, based on critical events.
methodsDrawing on the actor-network theory (ANT), we developed and field-tested the tool using three innovative health interventions in northeastern Brazil. Interventions were aimed to promote health equity through intersectoral approaches; were engaged in participatory evaluation and linked to professional training programs. The CEC developing involve practitioners and researchers from projects. Proof of concept was based on document analysis, face-to-face interviews and focus groups.
resultsAnalytical categories from CEC allow identifying and describing critical events as milestones in the evolution of complex interventions. Categories are (1) event description; (2) actants (human and non-human) involved; (3) interactions between actants; (4) mediations performed; (5) actions performed; (6) inscriptions produced; and (7) consequences for interventions.
conclusionsThe CEC provides a tool to analyze and represent intersectoral internvetions' complex and dynamic evolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27572490What 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.