Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36101597›Full record

ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2021

Allied health professions public health research priorities: A modified e-delphi study in the United Kingdom.

Laura Charlesworth, Linda Hindle

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laura CharlesworthPublic Health England, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Rd, South Bank, London, SE1 8UG, UK.
Linda HindlePublic Health England, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Rd, South Bank, London, SE1 8UG, UK.
Public Health England · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This study identifies the United Kingdom (UK) Allied Health Professions (AHP) public health research priorities through a modified e-Delphi study conducted with an expert panel. Study design: A modified e-Delphi study was utilised in this study. Methods: This study used a modified e-Delphi approach to reach a consensus on research priorities. Expert panel members were invited to participate and complete three rounds of the e-Delphi. Ethical approval was obtained through the Public Health England Research and Evidence Governance Group. Results: A total of 38 participants completed three rounds of the e-Delphi study between September and November 2020. Consensus was reached on nine AHP public health research priorities. Conclusion: Several areas of AHP public health research were identified as priority, however, a number of priorities refer to the impact of AHP public health activities as opposed to empirical research. The identified priorities will be used to progress the AHP public health research agenda through a UK wide AHP public health strategy implementation group and through support and engagement from the AHP professional bodies and arm's length bodies.

Indexed as

Allied health professions public health research consensus study modified e-delphi

Identifiers

PMID36101597
PMCPMC9461318
OpenAlexW3202374086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.