Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33691696›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2021

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.

Nicole Votruba, Jonathan Grant, Graham Thornicroft

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Nicole VotrubaCentre for Global Mental Health and Centre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, David Goldberg Centre, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, PO Box 28, London, SE5 8AF, UK. nicole.votruba@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0680-1290
Jonathan GrantPolicy Institute At King's, Virginia Woolf Building, The Strand, King's College London, London, UK.
Graham ThornicroftCentre for Global Mental Health and Centre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

COBALT: Comorbid Affective Disorders, AIDS/HIV, and Long Term HealthR01MH100470 · NIMH · KING'S COLLEGE LONDON · PI FAIRALL, LARA ROSEMARY, PETERSEN, INGE · 2013 to 2018
$2.0M
Economic and Social Research Council ES/J500057/1Medical Research Council MR/R023697/1Medical Research Council MR/S001255/1National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South LondonNational Institute for Health Research NIHR Asset Global Health UnitNIMH NIH HHS R01 MH100470NIMH NIH HHS R01MH100470
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMental health remains a neglected issue on the global health policy agenda, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and the translation of research evidence into policy and practice is slow. The new EVITA framework was developed to improve mental health evidence uptake and policy agenda-setting in LMICs. In addition, behavioural science methods may be able to support knowledge translation to policy.

methodsUsing a mixed-methods study design, we applied and tested the newly developed EVITA 1.1 framework against three case studies related to South Africa at the district, national and international levels. In-depth interviews with 26 experts were conducted between August and November 2019, transcribed, coded and analysed in NVivo, using iterative categorization. The data were analysed against both the EVITA framework and the MINDSPACE framework for behavioural insights.

resultsIn our case study comparison, we found that (1) research translation to the policy agenda occurs in a complex, fluid system which includes multiple "research clouds", "policy spheres" and other networks; (2) mental health research policy agenda-setting is based on key individuals and intermediaries and their interrelationships; and (3) key challenges and strategies for successful research to policy agenda impact are known, but are frequently not strategically implemented, such as including all stakeholders to overcome the policy implementation gap. Our data also suggest that behavioural science methods can be strategically applied to support knowledge translation to policy agenda-setting.

conclusionWe found that the EVITA framework is useful for understanding and improving mental health research policy interrelationships to support evidence uptake to the policy agenda, and that behavioural science methods are effective support mechanisms. The revised EVITA 2.0 framework therefore includes behavioural insights, for improved mental health policy agenda-setting in LMICs. More research is needed to understand whether EVITA can be applied to other LMICs and to high-income contexts.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPolicy MakingHumansMental HealthSouth AfricaTranslational Research, BiomedicalAgenda-settingEvidence-based policy-makingEvidence-informed policy-makingFrameworkKnowledge translation and exchangeLow- and middle-income countriesMental healthSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID33691696
PMCPMC7948345

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.