ArticleEuropean journal of public health2022
Interaction between science advice and policymaking in time of COVID-19: a French perspective.
Article in European journal of public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Formal and informal science-policy interaction during public health emergencies of international concern: a scoping review.BMC global and public health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) context, many governments relied on scientific consultative bodies to advise their policy, but their contribution remains poorly documented. This article aims to fill this gap by reviewing the role played by the French High Council for Public Health (HCSP) in the French government's response to COVID-19.
methodsWe studied the time distribution of the COVID-19 guidelines produced by the HCSP until November 2020, computed their delay of production and analyzed the thematic areas they cover. To assess their use by the authorities, we looked for references to these guidelines in the regulatory texts, protocols and press communicates issued by national and local authorities until January 2021.
resultsThe HCSP was strongly demanded with 102 guidelines produced following 97 official requests and two self-referrals. Most of them (N = 43) concerned protective measures to constrain the infection, while health inequalities and mental health were poorly addressed. Timing was very constraint as half of the guidelines were requested within 4 days. In total, 73% of the guidelines were used by policymakers to implement new obligations or within communication toward the public at national and local levels.
conclusionsThis article informs on the HCSP's contribution during the crisis and stresses the difficulties it encountered to provide quality recommendations in very short times. It prompts governments to enlarge the competencies of their advisory boards and to consider the multidimensional aspects of health in policy design.
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.