Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29208021›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2017

Alliance members' roles in collective field-building: an assessment of leadership and championship within the Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada.

Erica Di Ruggiero, Natalie Kishchuk, Sarah Viehbeck, Nancy Edwards, Kerry Robinson, Barbara Riley, Heather Smith Fowler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The bio-psycho-social determinants of health: Reflections on the CIAR Population Health Program (1987-2003).Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Erica Di RuggieroDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Suite 408, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M7, Canada. e.diruggiero@utoronto.ca.
Natalie KishchukProgram Evaluation and Beyond, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
Sarah ViehbeckSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Ottawa, Canada.
Nancy EdwardsSchool of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Kerry RobinsonPublic Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Barbara RileyPropel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Heather Smith FowlerSocial Research and Demonstration Corporation, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada (PHIRIC) is a multi-stakeholder alliance founded in 2006 to advance population health intervention research (PHIR). PHIRIC aimed to strengthen Canada's capacity to conduct and use such research to inform policy and practice to improve the public's health by building PHIR as a field of research. In 2014, an evaluative study of PHIRIC at organisational and system levels was conducted, guided by a field-building and collaborative action perspective.

methodsThe study involved 17 qualitative key informant interviews with 21 current and former PHIRIC Planning Committee and Working Group members. The interviews examined how individuals and organisations were acting as champions and exerting leadership in building the field of PHIR.

resultsFounding PHIRIC organisational members have been championing PHIR at organisational and system levels. While the PHIR field has progressed in terms of enhanced funding, legitimacy, profile and capacity, some members and organisations faced constraints and challenges acting as leaders and champions in their respective environments. Expectations about the future of PHIRIC and field-building of PHIR were mixed, where longer-term and founding members of PHIRIC expressed more optimism than recent members. All agreed on the need for incorporating perspectives of decision-makers into PHIR directions and initiatives.

conclusionsThe findings contribute to understanding alliance members' roles in leadership and championship for field-building more generally, and for population health and PHIR specifically. Building this field requires multi-level efforts, collaborative action and distributed leadership to create the necessary conditions for PHIRIC members to both benefit from and contribute to advancing PHIR as a field. Lessons from this 'made in Canada' model may be of interest to other countries regarding the structures needed for PHIR field-building.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineHealth Services ResearchLeadershipPopulation HealthPublic HealthTranslational Research, BiomedicalAttitudeCanadaCapacity BuildingHumansOrganizationsProgram EvaluationStakeholder ParticipationAllianceField-buildingPopulation health intervention researchResearch capacity-building

Identifiers

PMID29208021
PMCPMC5718088

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.