ArticleEuropean journal of public health2020
Priorities for improving chemicals management in the WHO European Region-stakeholders' views.
Article in European journal of public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevention of the impact of chemicals on human health and the environment is an increasing focus of public health polices and policy makers. The World Health Organization European Centre for Environment and Health wanted to know what were stakeholders' priorities for improving chemicals management and prevention.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were undertaken with 18 diverse stakeholders to answer this question. The interview questionnaire was developed using current WHO chemical meeting reports, the Evidence Implementation Model for Public Health Systems and categories of the theory of diffusion. Stakeholder views were attained on three main questions within the questionnaire. (i) What priority actions should be undertaken to minimize the negative impact of chemicals? (ii) Who needs to be more involved and what roles should they have? (iii) How can science and knowledge on chemicals and health be translated into policies more effectively and what are the greatest barriers to overcome?
resultsCross cutting issues, such as legislation strengthening and enforcement, further collection of information, capacity building, education and awareness raising were considered priorities. The responders had the same vision on roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders. The greatest barrier to adoption, implementation and enforcement of evidence-based policies reported was leadership and political commitment to chemical safety.
conclusionsPriorities raised differed depending on knowledge, professional background and type of stakeholder. Factors influencing priority identification at the national level include international and global context, availability of information, knowledge of the current situation and evidence-based good practice, and risks and priorities identified through national assessments.
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.