Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31248422›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019

Obstacles and opportunities to using research evidence in local public health decision-making in England.

Dylan Kneale, Antonio Rojas-García, James Thomas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Public Involvement in Complex Theorising: A Co-Produced Logic Model of the Role of Context in Shaping Child Health.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [One hundred years of theRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2023
    Article
  20. 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.

Dylan KnealeEvidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, United Kingdom. d.kneale@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7016-978X
Antonio Rojas-GarcíaNIHR CLAHRC North Thames, Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom. a.rojas-garcia@ucl.ac.uk.
James ThomasEvidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLocal public health service delivery and policy-setting in England was overhauled in 2013, with local government now responsible for the complex tasks involved in protecting and improving population health and addressing health inequalities. Since 2013, public health funding per person has declined, adding to the challenge of public health decision-making. In a climate of austerity, research evidence could help to guide the more effective use of resources, although there are concerns that the reorganisation of public health decision-making structures has disrupted traditional evidence use patterns. This study aimed to explore local public health evidence use and needs in this new decision-making climate.

methodsSemi-structured interviews with Public Health Practitioners across three Local Authorities were conducted, with sites purposefully selected to represent urban, suburban and county Local Authorities, and to reflect a range of public health issues that might be encountered. A topic guide was developed that allowed participants to reflect on their experience and involvement in providing evidence for, or making a decision around, commissioning a public health service. Data were transcribed and template analysis was employed to understand the findings, which involved developing a coding template based on an initial transcript and applying this to subsequent transcripts.

resultsIncreased political involvement in local public health decision-making, while welcomed by some participants as a form of democratising public health, has influenced evidence preferences in a number of ways. Political and individual ideologies of locally elected officials meant that certain forms of evidence could be overlooked in favour of evidence that corresponded to decision-makers' preferences. Political involvement at the local level has increased the appetite for local knowledge and evidence. Research evidence needs to demonstrate its local salience if it is to contribute to decision-making alongside competing sources, particularly anecdotal information.

conclusionTo better meet decision-making needs of politicians and practitioners, a shift in the scope of public health evidence is required. At a systematic review level, this could involve moving away from producing evidence that reflects broad global generalisations about narrow and simple questions, and instead towards producing forms of evidence that have local applicability and can support complex policy-focussed decisions.

Indexed as

Decision MakingLocal GovernmentPoliticsPublic Health AdministrationEnglandEvidence-Based PracticeHealth Status DisparitiesHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchState Medicine

Identifiers

PMID31248422
PMCPMC6598344

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.