Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34388582›Full record

ArticleHealth & place2021

Stakeholder experiences of using online spatial data visualisation tools for local public health decision support: A qualitative study.

Roxanne Armstrong-Moore, Martin White, Thomas Burgoine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health & place, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Roxanne Armstrong-MooreUKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, England, UK. Electronic address: Roxanne.armstrong-moore@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.
Martin WhiteUKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, England, UK.
Thomas BurgoineUKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, England, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/7Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The distribution of food outlets within towns and cities and the provision of active travel infrastructure have been associated with health behaviours that can contribute to obesity risk. Decision-makers describe a lack of local data and research evidence as a barrier to policy adoption to improve the public's health. Online spatial data visualisation tools created by researchers can help to bridge this gap. We explored stakeholder experiences of using such tools for decision-support, with a focus on facilitators and barriers to use. We conducted 16 qualitative interviews with Public Health, Planning and Transport Planning professionals, who had used two recently-developed tools. Participants described the importance of tools being open access; their use in "story-telling", particularly to non-experts; and more broadly their use even when imperfect. They expressed that 'robustness' of underpinning data was important, however this was not easily defined. Participants employed personal heuristics, principally based on endorsement and developer credibility, to determine suitability for use. We present key learning points for future developers to maximise engagement and impact.

Indexed as

Public HealthHumansQualitative ResearchAcceptabilityDecision-supportHealth behavioursOnline spatial data visualisation toolsQualitative methods

Identifiers

PMID34388582
PMCPMC8520943

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.