Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27654897›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2016

Simulation modelling as a tool for knowledge mobilisation in health policy settings: a case study protocol.

L Freebairn, J Atkinson, P Kelly, G McDonnell, L Rychetnik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

L FreebairnACT Health, GPO Box 825, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. louise.freebairn@act.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7434-870X
J AtkinsonThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sax Institute, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Sydney, Australia.
P KellyACT Health, GPO Box 825, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
G McDonnellThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sax Institute, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Sydney, Australia.
L RychetnikThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sax Institute, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence-informed decision-making is essential to ensure that health programs and services are effective and offer value for money; however, barriers to the use of evidence persist. Emerging systems science approaches and advances in technology are providing new methods and tools to facilitate evidence-based decision-making. Simulation modelling offers a unique tool for synthesising and leveraging existing evidence, data and expert local knowledge to examine, in a robust, low risk and low cost way, the likely impact of alternative policy and service provision scenarios. This case study will evaluate participatory simulation modelling to inform the prevention and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The risks associated with GDM are well recognised; however, debate remains regarding diagnostic thresholds and whether screening and treatment to reduce maternal glucose levels reduce the associated risks. A diagnosis of GDM may provide a leverage point for multidisciplinary lifestyle modification interventions. This research will apply and evaluate a simulation modelling approach to understand the complex interrelation of factors that drive GDM rates, test options for screening and interventions, and optimise the use of evidence to inform policy and program decision-making. METHODS/

designThe study design will use mixed methods to achieve the objectives. Policy, clinical practice and research experts will work collaboratively to develop, test and validate a simulation model of GDM in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The model will be applied to support evidence-informed policy dialogues with diverse stakeholders for the management of GDM in the ACT. Qualitative methods will be used to evaluate simulation modelling as an evidence synthesis tool to support evidence-based decision-making. Interviews and analysis of workshop recordings will focus on the participants' engagement in the modelling process; perceived value of the participatory process, perceived commitment, influence and confidence of stakeholders in implementing policy and program decisions identified in the modelling process; and the impact of the process in terms of policy and program change. DISCUSSION: The study will generate empirical evidence on the feasibility and potential value of simulation modelling to support knowledge mobilisation and consensus building in health settings.

Indexed as

EvaluationGestational diabetes mellitusGroup model buildingHealth systemsKnowledge mobilisationParticipatory simulation modelling

Identifiers

PMID27654897
PMCPMC5031301

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.