ReviewPublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2021
A rapid review and expert identification of the Allied Health Professions' interventions as a contribution to public health outcomes.
Review in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Elizabeth Casson Memorial Lecture 2024: The time is now, building a social movement to demonstrate the value of occupation.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2026Article
- Allied health professionals: A promising ally in the work against health inequalities- A rapid review.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2022Review
- Allied health professions public health research priorities: A modified e-delphi study in the United Kingdom.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim: In preparation for the Public Health England Impact Assessment of the 2014 AHP Public Health Strategy a follow up rapid literature review was commissioned. The aim was to identify primary studies in which Allied Health Professionals (AHP) contribute to public health outcomes, based on UK research evidence. This review was used to inform further UK policy and implementation for AHPs in the UK via Public Health England. Methods: A rapid mixed methods review was conducted, limiting the selection of studies to those published after December 2014 and recognising the same 12 Allied Health Professions that were used in the previous review. The rapid review included all age groups and patient populations but limited the searches to studies that reflected UK AHP practices and research outcomes. The literature search included title, abstract and full-text screening with data extraction of selected papers. A nominal group method invited expert AHPs to review and select the interventions for potential impact at population level. Results: 11 selected articles were grouped into two areas of interventions; health intervention/public health and secondary prevention/health improvement, based on the Public Health England Strategic Framework. AHP interventions were effective for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Osteoarthritis and specifically used to manage musculoskeletal conditions (e.g. frozen shoulder). AHPs leading vocational rehabilitation and falls management were also effective. These areas were additional to those previously identified and represented some additional specialist activity undertaken to affect health outcomes. Conclusions: This study also contributed to the UK AHP Public Health Strategic Framework 2019-2024 by appraising the UK evidence and impact of some AHP practices. Further improvement is required; for AHPs to measure the impact of their interventions which would demonstrate evidence of outcomes at population level.
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.