ArticleHealth education research2018
Exploring political influences on evidence-based non-communicable disease prevention across four countries.
Article in Health education research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Influencing the Implementation of Foreign Innovations in Organization and Management of Health Service Delivery in China: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in health services · 2021Pooled it
- Bridging Research, Policy, and Practice: Advancing Evidence-Informed Approaches for Dementia Care and Prevention: an expert review by the Health Policy Professional Interest Area from ISTAART.Alzheimer's & dementia. Behavior & socioeconomics of aging · 2026Article
- How governments influence public health research: a scoping review.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Impact of Contextual Factors on the Attendance and Role in the Evidence-Based Chronic Disease Prevention Programs Among Primary Care Practitioners in Shanghai, China.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments.BMC health services research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Implementation of evidence-based practices can improve efficiency and effectiveness of public health efforts. Few studies have explored the political contextual factors that impact implementation of evidence-based non-communicable disease prevention (EBNCDP). This study aimed to do so in Australia, Brazil, China and the United States. Investigators conducted 10-13 qualitative, semi-structured interviews of public health practitioners working in functionally similar public health organizations in each country (total N = 50). Study participants were identified through purposive sampling and interviews were structured around an interview guide covering six domains related to EBNCDP. Interviewees from all four countries identified funding as the primary politically-influenced barrier to implementing EBNCDP. Similarly widespread barriers included government funding priorities that shift based on who is in power and the difficulty of convincing policy-makers and funders that non-communicable disease prevention is a wise investment of political capital. Policymakers who are not evidence-driven was another common barrier even in the United States and Australia, where EBNCDP is more established. Findings suggest that political contextual factors influence EBNCDP and vary to an extent by country, though certain factors seem to be universal. This can aid public health practitioners, political leaders, and policymakers in advocating for conditions and policies that encourage evidence-based practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.