ArticleHealth policy and planning2020
The EVITA framework for evidence-based mental health policy agenda setting in low- and middle-income countries.
Article in Health policy and planning, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prioritizing policy issues for knowledge translation: a critical interpretive synthesis.Global health research and policy · 2025Pooled it
- Beyond the clinic: The role of the psychiatrist in practicing pragmatic solidarity.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Frameworks to support evidence-informed decision-making in public health and infectious disease prevention and control: a scoping review.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025Article
- What is context in knowledge translation? Results of a systematic scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Quality evaluation of clinical practice guidelines for placenta accreta spectrum disorders.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Collaborative implementation of an evidence-based package of integrated primary mental healthcare using quality improvement within a learning health systems approach: Lessons from the Mental health INTegration programme in South Africa.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- From bench to policy: a critical analysis of models for evidence-informed policymaking in healthcare.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
- From Chaos to Rationality: A Contingent Meta-Model for Evidence-Informed Health Policymaking in Diverse Contexts.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2024Article
- Challenges for research uptake for health policymaking and practice in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Using evidence in mental health policy agenda-setting in low- and middle-income countries: a conceptual meta-framework from a scoping umbrella review.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
- Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment in the 21st century: paradigm shifts versus incremental integration.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2022Article
- Measurement of population mental health: evidence from a mobile phone survey in India.Health policy and planning · 2021Article
- EVITA 2.0, an updated framework for understanding evidence-based mental health policy agenda-setting: tested and informed by key informant interviews in a multilevel comparative case study.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The burden of mental illness is excessive, but many countries lack evidence-based policies to improve practice. Mental health research evidence translation into policymaking is a 'wicked problem', often failing despite a robust evidence base. In a recent systematic review, we identified a gap in frameworks on agenda setting and actionability, and pragmatic, effective tools to guide action to link research and policy are needed. Responding to this gap, we developed the new EVITA 1.1 (EVIdence To Agenda setting) conceptual framework for mental health research-policy interrelationships in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We (1) drafted a provisional framework (EVITA 1.0); (2) validated it for specific applicability to mental health; (3) conducted expert in-depth interviews to (a) validate components and mechanisms and (b) assess intelligibility, functionality, relevance, applicability and effectiveness. To guide interview validation, we developed a simple evaluation framework. (4) Using deductive framework analysis, we coded and identified themes and finalized the framework (EVITA 1.1). Theoretical agenda-setting elements were added, as targeting the policy agenda-setting stage was found to lead to greater policy traction. The framework was validated through expert in-depth interviews (n = 13) and revised. EVITA 1.1 consists of six core components [advocacy coalitions, (en)actors, evidence generators, external influences, intermediaries and political context] and four mechanisms (capacity, catalysts, communication/relationship/partnership building and framing). EVITA 1.1 is novel and unique because it very specifically addresses the mental health research-policy process in LMICs and includes policy agenda setting as a novel, effective mechanism. Based on a thorough methodology, and through its specific design and mechanisms, EVITA has the potential to improve the challenging process of research evidence translation into policy and practice in LMICs and to increase the engagement and capacity of mental health researchers, policy agencies/planners, think tanks, NGOs and others within the mental health research-policy interface. Next, EVITA 1.1 will be empirically tested in a case study.
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.