Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31974295›Full record

ReviewJournal of epidemiology and community health2020

Scientific challenges for precision public health.

Frank Kee, David Taylor-Robinson

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Advancing precision public health for obesity in children.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Frank KeeCentre for Statistical Science and Operational Research (CenSSOR), Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
David Taylor-RobinsonPublic Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK dctr@liv.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5828-7724
Queen's University Belfast · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0802448Medical Research Council MR/K023241/1Medical Research Council MR/P008577/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The notion of 'precision' public health has been the subject of much debate, with recent articles coming to its defence following the publication of several papers questioning its value.Critics of precision public health raise the following problems and questionable assumptions: the inherent limits of prediction for individuals; the limits of approaches to prevention that rely on individual agency, in particular the potential for these approaches to widen inequalities; the undue emphasis on the supposed new information contained in individuals' molecules and their 'big data' at the expense of their own preferences for a particular intervention strategy and the diversion of resources and attention from the social determinants of health.In order to refocus some of these criticisms of precision public health as scientific questions, this article outlines some of the challenges when defining risk for individuals; the limitations of current theory and study design for precision public health; and the potential for unintended harms.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePrecision MedicinePublic HealthHealth PolicyHumansWorkforceepidemiologypublic health policyrandomised trials

Identifiers

PMID31974295
PMCPMC7079187
OpenAlexW3001031371

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.