Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35960906›Full record

ArticleJCO global oncology2022

Role of Local Evidence in Transferring Evidence-Based Interventions to Low- and Middle-Income Country Settings: Application to Global Cancer Prevention and Control.

Mark Parascandola, Gila Neta, Ramzi G Salloum, Donna Shelley, Anne F Rositch

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO global oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Challenges in Type 2 Diabetes Prevention among Senior High School Students: A Qualitative Study.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Advancing Tobacco Cessation in LMICs.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022
    Review
  11. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mark ParascandolaCenter for Global Health, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.ORCID 0000-0001-6071-8493
Gila NetaDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.ORCID 0000-0002-4459-6542
Ramzi G SalloumDepartment of Health Outcomes & Biomedical Informatics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL.ORCID 0000-0002-8139-2418
Donna ShelleyDepartment of Policy and Public Health Management, NYU School of Global Public Health, New York, NY.
Anne F RositchDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.ORCID 0000-0002-0403-8482
Center for Global Health · USJohns Hopkins University · USNational Cancer Institute · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough the global burden of cancer falls increasingly on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), much of the evidence for cancer prevention and control comes from high-income countries and may not be directly applicable to LMIC settings. In this paper, we focus on the following question: When the majority of the evidence supporting an evidence-based intervention or implementation strategy comes from high-income countries, what local, contextual evidence is needed when transferring and adapting an intervention or strategy to a specific LMIC setting?

methodsWe draw on an existing framework (the Population, Intervention, Environment, Transfer-T process model) for assessing transferability of interventions between distinct settings and apply the model to two case studies as learning examples involving implementation of tobacco use treatment guidelines and self sampling for human papillomavirus DNA in cervical cancer screening.

resultsThese two case studies illustrate how researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and consumers may approach the need for local evidence from different perspectives and with different priorities. As uses and expectations around local evidence may be different for different groups, aligning these priorities through multistakeholder engagement in which all parties participate in defining the questions and cocreating the solutions is critical, along with promoting standardized reporting of contextual factors.

conclusionLocal, contextual evidence can be important for both researchers and practitioners, and its absence may hinder translation of research and implementation efforts across different settings. However, it is essential for researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders to be able to clearly articulate the type of data needed and why it is important. In particular, where resources are limited, evidence generation should be prioritized to address real needs and gaps in knowledge.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHumansIncome

Identifiers

PMID35960906
PMCPMC9812451
OpenAlexW4290879685

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.