Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32226161›Full record

ArticlePolicy sciences2020

Policy processes

Catherine M Jones, Carole Clavier, Louise Potvin

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Policy sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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.

Catherine M Jones1LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9431-9121
Carole Clavier2Regroupement stratégique Politiques publiques et santé des populations, Réseau de recherche en santé des populations, Montréal, Québec Canada.
Louise Potvin4Centre de recherche en santé publique (CReSP), Université de Montréal and CIUSSS Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, Montréal, Québec Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

National policy on global health (NPGH) arenas are multisectoral governing arrangements for cooperation between health, development, and foreign affairs sectors in government policy for global health governance. To explore the relationship between national and global processes for governing global health, this paper asks: in what forms of interaction between NPGH arenas and global health governance are learning and networking processes present? In a multiple case study of Norwegian and Swiss NPGH arenas, we collected data on intersectoral policy processes from semi-structured interviews with 33 informants in 2014-2015. Adapting Real-Dato's framework, we analyzed each case separately, producing monographs for comparing NPGH arenas. Analyzing both NPGH arenas for relational structures linking external resources to internal policy arena processes, we found five zones of interactions - including institutions, transgovernmental clubs, and connective forms. These interactions circulate ideas and soften arenas' boundaries. We argue that NPGH is characteristic of transnational governance of global health.

Indexed as

Boundary spanningElite networkingGlobal health governanceInteractionIntersectoral policy processesNational policy on global healthPolicy learningTransnational governance

Identifiers

PMID32226161
PMCPMC7093079

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.