ArticleGlobal challenges (Hoboken, NJ)2018
When "Good Evidence" Is Not Enough: A Case of Global Malaria Policy Development.
Article in Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Defining a malaria diagnostic pathway from innovation to adoption: Stakeholder perspectives on data and evidence gaps.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Power across the global health landscape: a network analysis of development assistance 1990-2015.Health policy and planning · 2022Article
- Adoption of evidence-based global policies at the national level: intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in pregnancy and first trimester treatment in Kenya, Malawi, Mali and The Gambia.Health policy and planning · 2021Article
- How useful are malaria risk maps at the country level? Perceptions of decision-makers in Kenya, Malawi and the Democratic Republic of Congo.Malaria journal · 2020Article
- Towards a Systematic Understanding of How to Institutionally Design Scientific Advisory Committees: A Conceptual Framework and Introduction to a Special Journal Issue.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2018Review
- Designing Scientific Advisory Committees for a Complex World.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2018Article
- When "Good Evidence" Is Not Enough: A Case of Global Malaria Policy Development.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper presents findings from a case study of two different policy development processes within the WHO's malaria department. By comparing the policy processes for the interventions of intermittent preventive treatment in infants versus children, the findings suggest that "good evidence" from a technical perspective, though important, is not sufficient to ensure universal agreement and uptake of recommendations. An analysis of 29 key informant interviews finds that evidence also needs to be relevant to the policy question being asked, and that expert actors retain a concern over the legitimacy of the process by which technical evidence is brought to bear in the policy development process. Previous findings from the field of sustainable development, that evidence must be credible, salient, and legitimate to be accepted by the public, appears to apply equally within scientific advisory committees. While the WHO has principally focused on technical criteria for evidence inclusion in its policy development processes, this study suggests that the design and functionality of its advisory bodies must also enable transparent, responsive, and accepted processes of evidence review to ensure that these bodies are effective in producing advice that engenders change in policy and 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.