ArticleBuildings & cities2021
Relationship-building around a policy decision-support tool for urban health.
Article in Buildings & cities, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Urban Governance, Multisectoral Action, and Civic Engagement for Population Health, Wellbeing, and Equity in Urban Settings: A Systematic Review.International journal of public health · 2023Pooled it
- Urban health research: shaping integrated policies for health, equity, sustainability, and climate.European journal of public health · 2026Article
- Knowledge translation of climate change research into public health action: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Bridging research-policy gaps: An integrated approach.Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2024Article
- Knowledge management tools and mechanisms for evidence-informed decision-making in the WHO European Region: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Understanding Urban Green Space Usage through Systems Thinking: A Case Study in Thamesmead, London.Sustainability · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Contemporary challenges linked to public health and climate change demand more effective decision-making and urban planning practices, in particular by taking greater account of evidence. In order to do this, trust-building relationships between scientists and urban practitioners through collaborative research programmes is required. Based on a policy-relevant research project, Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health (CUSSH), this project aims to support the transformation of cities to meet environmental imperatives and to improve health with a quantitative health impact assessment. A case study in Rennes, France, focuses on the role of a policy decision-support tool in the production and use of knowledge to support evidence-informed decision-making. Although the primary objective of informing decision-making through evidence-based science is not fulfilled, the use of a decision-making support tool can lay the foundations for relationship-building. It can serve as a support for boundary-spanning activities, which are recognised for their effectiveness in linking science to action. This case study illustrates that the path of knowledge transfer from science to policy can be challenging, and the usefulness of using models may not be where it was thought to have been.
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.