SynthesisSystematic reviews2018
Can automated content analysis be used to assess and improve the use of evidence in mental health policy? A systematic review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring recovery-oriented rehabilitation language in clinical documentation to enhance recovery-oriented practice.BJPsych open · 2023Article
- Inter-agency collaboration is associated with increased frequency of research use in children's mental health policy making.Health services research · 2022Article
- Exploring the Use of Evidence From the Development and Evaluation of an Electronic Health (eHealth) Trial: Case Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Text Mining and Quantitative Research of Medical Service Policy: Sichuan Province as an Example.Frontiers in public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis review assesses the utility of applying an automated content analysis method to the field of mental health policy development. We considered the possibility of using the Wordscores algorithm to assess research and policy texts in ways that facilitate the uptake of research into mental health policy.
methodsThe PRISMA framework and the McMaster appraisal tools were used to systematically review and report on the strengths and limitations of the Wordscores algorithm. Nine electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2003 and 2016. Inclusion criteria were (1) articles had to be published in public health, political science, social science or health services disciplines; (2) articles had to be research articles or opinion pieces that used Wordscores; and (3) articles had to discuss both strengths and limitations of using Wordscores for content analysis.
resultsThe literature search returned 118 results. Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. These articles explored a range of policy questions and appraised different aspects of the Wordscores method. DISCUSSION: Following synthesis of the material, we identified the following as potential strengths of Wordscores: (1) the Wordscores algorithm can be used at all stages of policy development; (2) it is valid and reliable; (3) it can be used to determine the alignment of health policy drafts with research evidence; (4) it enables existing policies to be revised in the light of research; and (5) it can determine whether changes in policy over time were supported by the evidence. Potential limitations identified were (1) decreased accuracy with short documents, (2) words constitute the unit of analysis and (3) expertise is needed to choose 'reference texts'.
conclusionsAutomated content analysis may be useful in assessing and improving the use of evidence in mental health policies. Wordscores is an automated content analysis option for comparing policy and research texts that could be used by both researchers and policymakers.
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.