Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27721899›Full record

ArticleJournal of communication in healthcare2016

Challenges to generating evidence-informed policy and the role of systematic reviews and (perceived) conflicts of interest.

Dorie E Apollonio, Lisa A Bero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of communication in healthcare, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
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

2 authors.

Dorie E ApollonioUniversity of California, San Francisco, USA.
Lisa A BeroUniversity of Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

Translating Research into Systemic Interventions for Tobacco CessationK07CA140236 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI APOLLONIO, DOROTHY ELINOR · 2011 to 2015
$838k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA140236United States NCI
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple efforts to generate evidence-informed policy have attempted to teach policymakers how to understand and apply scientific research findings in their decision-making. These efforts have had limited success, because policymakers generally do not understand scientific methods.

objectiveWe piloted efforts to teach policy intermediaries - specifically consumer advocacy groups - how to understand and apply health research, anticipating that they might offer such evidence to policymakers in more accessible forms.

designFour workshops focusing on research design and methods were conducted with consumer advocacy groups in 2010. We coded and analyzed participant responses regarding their confidence in interpreting research findings and assessments of research credibility, and the extent to which their knowledge about research findings changed after completing the workshops.

resultsOur findings suggest that although participants expressed strong interest in understanding scientific research, their ability to develop confidence about scientific research methods was limited. However, like policymakers, consumer advocacy group members intuited that financial conflicts of interest could compromise scientific findings, although they initially underestimated their effects on research results. After training, consumer advocates also saw the value of using systematic reviews rather than individual studies. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsOur findings suggest that although advocates may not feel confident in their understanding of scientific research, they found it easier to understand the value of systematic reviews and the risks of conflicts of interest than other statistical concepts and terminology. Focusing on making these types of information available may offer a useful way for policymakers and consumer advocates to interpret the validity of policy-relevant scientific research.

Indexed as

Conflict of interestConsumer advocacyEvidence-based practicePolicyTobacco

Identifiers

PMID27721899
PMCPMC5055062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.