Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33298470›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2020

Making sense of the evidence in population health intervention research: building a dry stone wall.

David Ogilvie, Adrian Bauman, Louise Foley, Cornelia Guell, David Humphreys, Jenna Panter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. The bio-psycho-social determinants of health: Reflections on the CIAR Population Health Program (1987-2003).Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  5. Natural experiments in the built environment: evaluating impacts on health.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Understanding how and why travel mode changes: analysis of longitudinal qualitative interviews.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. The ten steps for acting on health inequalities.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

David OgilvieMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK david.ogilvie@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0270-4672
Adrian BaumanSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Louise FoleyMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Cornelia GuellEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter, Truro, UK.
David HumphreysDepartment of Social Policy and Innovation, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jenna PanterMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBOxford Policy Management · GBThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

Department of Health 11/3005/07Department of Health PDF-2012-05-157Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/7Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/6Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust HOP001/1051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To effectively tackle population health challenges, we must address the fundamental determinants of behaviour and health. Among other things, this will entail devoting more attention to the evaluation of upstream intervention strategies. However, merely increasing the supply of such studies is not enough. The pivotal link between research and policy or practice should be the cumulation of insight from multiple studies. If conventional evidence synthesis can be thought of as analogous to building a wall, then we can increase the supply of bricks (the number of studies), their similarity (statistical commensurability) or the strength of the mortar (the statistical methods for holding them together). However, many contemporary public health challenges seem akin to herding sheep in mountainous terrain, where ordinary walls are of limited use and a more flexible way of combining dissimilar stones (pieces of evidence) may be required. This would entail shifting towards generalising the functions of interventions, rather than their effects; towards inference to the best explanation, rather than relying on binary hypothesis-testing; and towards embracing divergent findings, to be resolved by testing theories across a cumulated body of work. In this way we might channel a spirit of pragmatic pluralism into making sense of complex sets of evidence, robust enough to support more plausible causal inference to guide action, while accepting and adapting to the reality of the public health landscape rather than wishing it were otherwise. The traditional art of dry stone walling can serve as a metaphor for the more 'holistic sense-making' we propose.

Indexed as

Population HealthHumansintervention studyprevention strategiespublic healthsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33298470
PMCPMC7733100
OpenAlexW3110991478

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.