ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2021
[Evidence-based primary prevention and health promotion: methods and procedures in 5 research consortia].
Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Individualized Sensory-Based mHealth Interventions to Improve Distress Coping in Healthcare Professionals: A Multi-Arm Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Trial.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Trial
- Article
- A theoretical analysis of professionalism in health promotion with a focus on the Swiss context.Global health promotion · 2025Article
- [Effects of citizen involvement and participation in knowledge processes of integrated municipal health promotion: a systematic scoping review].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Article
- Effects of the Population-Based "10,000 Steps Duesseldorf" Intervention for Promoting Physical Activity in Community-Dwelling Adults: Protocol for a Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Between 2014 and 2022, the 5 German research networks AEQUIPA, CAPITAL4HEALTH, HLCA, PartKommPlus, and SMARTACT are investigating topics of primary prevention and health promotion with the aim of further deepening the evidence base in these areas. The work of the 5 research networks for primary prevention and health promotion is presented, analysed, and discussed from an internal perspective. A model of evidence-based public health serves as a structuring framework.The 5 research networks use a variety of access routes for the generation of evidence with regard to the participation of nonacademic, civil society actors and users. There is a wide range of study designs - from randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews to diverse qualitative designs. The use of models and theories supports the evidence base. Beyond evidence generation, all research networks focus on at least exemplary implementation of new evidence.Due to the diversity of methods, a diversified evidence-based approach can be realised, taking into account network-specific aspects. Structural circumstances limit the further systematic strengthening of the evidence base. In particular, the involvement of nonacademic, civil society actors for the work with hard-to-reach target groups often cannot be financed or is considered too time consuming under the given circumstances. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of a flexible spectrum of methods, employing both digital and analogue methods in a meaningful way.
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.