Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28056895›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2017

Negotiating multisectoral evidence: a qualitative study of knowledge exchange at the intersection of transport and public health.

Cornelia Guell, Roger Mackett, David Ogilvie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. [Jugan geon-gang gwa jilbyeong · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Urban Climate Policy and Action through a Health Lens-An Untapped Opportunity.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cornelia GuellMRC Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 285, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. cg463@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0105-410X
Roger MackettDepartment of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London, Chadwick Building, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
David OgilvieMRC Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 285, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

British Heart FoundationDepartment of Health 09/3001/06Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/6Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor the prevention and control of chronic diseases, two strategies are frequently highlighted: that public health should be evidence based, and that it should develop a multisectoral approach. At the end of a natural experimental study of the health impacts of new transport infrastructure, we took the opportunity of a knowledge exchange forum to explore how stakeholders assessed, negotiated and intended to apply multisectoral evidence in policy and practice at the intersection of transport and health. We aimed to better understand the challenges they faced in knowledge exchange, as well as their everyday experiences with working in multisectoral remits.

methodsIn 2015, we conducted participant observation during an interactive event with 41 stakeholders from national and local government, the third sector and academia in Cambridge, UK. Formal and informal interactions between stakeholders were recorded in observational field notes. We also conducted 18 semistructured interviews reflecting on the event and on knowledge exchange in general.

resultsWe found that stakeholders negotiated a variety of challenges. First, stakeholders had to negotiate relatively new formal and informal multisectoral remits; and how to reconcile the differing expectations of transport specialists, who tended to emphasise the importance of precedence in guiding action, and health specialists' concern for the rigour and synthesis of research evidence. Second, research in this field involved complex study designs, and often produced evidence with uncertain transferability to other settings. Third, health outcomes of transport schemes had political traction and were used strategically but not easily translated into cost-benefit ratios. Finally, knowledge exchange meant multiple directions of influence. Stakeholders were concerned that researchers did not always have skills to translate their findings into understandable evidence, and some stakeholders would welcome opportunities to influence research agendas.

conclusionsThis case study of stakeholders' experiences indicates that multisectoral research, practice and policymaking requires the ability and capacity to locate, understand and communicate complex evidence from a variety of disciplines, and integrate different types of evidence into clear business cases beyond sectoral boundaries.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeExerciseHealth PolicyKnowledgePolicy MakingPublic HealthTransportationAttitudeChronic DiseaseCost-Benefit AnalysisEnvironment DesignHumansIntentionNegotiatingPrivate SectorPublic SectorEthnographic researchEvidence based practiceKnowledge exchangeMultisectoralityPopulation health interventionsPublic healthTransportUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID28056895
PMCPMC5217628
OpenAlexW2571348385

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.