Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31257560›Full record

ArticleAmbio2019

Transitioning to non-toxic ammunition: Making change happen.

Ruth Cromie, Julia Newth, Emily Strong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ambio, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Ruth CromieWildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire, GL2 7BT, UK. ruth.cromie@wwt.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1069-6350
Julia NewthWildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire, GL2 7BT, UK.
Emily StrongWildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire, GL2 7BT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

If the multiple negative health impacts associated with lead ammunition are to be mitigated, a transition to the non-toxic alternatives is needed. This paper aims to map out the pathways to such a transition via a modification of Kotter's eight step theory of change, identifying key stakeholders, exploring options for those of us advocating change and the relationships between policy and persuasion. The focus is primarily on the UK, but it is of direct relevance to the rest of Europe and beyond. The theory of change model involves (1) creating urgency, (2) building coalitions, (3) creating a vision for change, (4) communicating that vision, (5) removing barriers to enable action, (6) creating short-term or geospatial wins, (7) building on the change and (8) embedding change in culture and regulation. The paper reflects on good progress to date in initial steps, but throughout subsequent steps creative engagement and other disciplines which appreciate the human dimensions such as mediation and psychology of behaviour change have been lacking. Although significant barriers remain for Step 5, the paper identifies the central vision of sustainability of hunting as a shared value around which most stakeholders can engage. The paper concludes that, given the growing momentum surrounding this issue in recent years, the phasing out of lead ammunition is at a tipping point.

Indexed as

Environmental PolicyEnvironmental PollutantsLeadEuropeFirearmsHumansEnvironmental PollutantsLeadConflictEngagementLead ammunitionStakeholderSustainable huntingTheory of change

Identifiers

PMID31257560
PMCPMC6675834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.