Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33355266›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2020

Contextual equipoise: a novel concept to inform ethical implications for implementation research in low-income and middle-income countries.

Nadine Seward, Charlotte Hanlon, Jamie Murdoch, Tim Colbourn, Martin James Prince, Sridhar Venkatapuram, Nick Sevdalis

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nadine SewardCentre for Implementation Science, Department of Health Service and Population Research, King's College London, London, UK nadine.seward@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4821-9437
Charlotte HanlonInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Centre for Global Mental Health, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7937-3226
Jamie MurdochNorwich Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9021-3629
Tim Colbourn *Institute of Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6917-6552
Martin James Prince *Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1379-7146
Sridhar VenkatapuramKing's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3076-0783
Nick SevdalisHealth Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.
King's College London · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The call for universal health coverage requires the urgent implementation and scale-up of interventions that are known to be effective, in resource-poor settings. Achieving this objective requires high-quality implementation research (IR) that evaluates the complex phenomenon of the influence of context on the ability to effectively deliver evidence-based practice. Nevertheless, IR for global health is failing to apply a robust, theoretically driven approach, leading to ethical concerns associated with research that is not methodologically sound.Inappropriate methods are often used in IR to address and report on context. This may result in a lack in understanding of how to effectively adapt the intervention to the new setting and a lack of clarity in conceptualising whether there is sufficient evidence to generalise findings from previous IR to a new setting, or if a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed. Some of the ethical issues arising from this shortcoming include poor-quality research that may needlessly expose vulnerable participants to research that has not been adapted to suit local needs and priorities, and the inappropriate use of RCTs that denies participants in the control arm access to treatment that is effective within the local context.To address these concerns, we propose a complementary approach to clinical equipoise for IR, known as

Indexed as

Developing CountriesEthics, ResearchIncomeHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTherapeutic Equipoisehealth policyother study designpublic healthrandomised control trial

Identifiers

PMID33355266
PMCPMC7757476
OpenAlexW3117298088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.