GuidelinePLoS medicine2021
Social Innovation For Health Research: Development of the SIFHR Checklist.
Guideline in PLoS medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community engagement and implementation science: a hermeneutic review for implementation scientists.Implementation science communications · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of a Community-Based Social Innovation for Opisthorchis viverrini and Cholangiocarcinoma Prevention in High-Risk Areas of Thailand.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Article
- Utilization of community engagement in social innovation health projects in low-and-middle income countries: A global sequential mixed methods analysis.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Integrating Human-Centered Design Methods Into a Health Promotion Project: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education Case Study for Intervention Design.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Social innovations for healthBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2022Article
- Review
- Social innovation based on collaboration between government and non-governmental organizations in COVID-19 crisis: evidence from Iran.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2022Article
- Dynamic geographical accessibility assessments to improve health equity: protocol for a test case in Cali, Colombia.F1000Research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSocial innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations for health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. METHODS AND
findingsThe research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups.
conclusionsThe SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation for health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health.
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.