ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2023
Public health priority setting on a national scale: The Scottish experience.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Time since cigarette smoking cessation and self-rated health among exclusive e-cigarette users.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
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
Objectives: Scotland has the lowest life expectancy in Western Europe and significant health inequalities. A national review of public health in 2015 found that there was a lack of coherent action across organisational boundaries, inhibiting progress. This paper describes a rapid (four-month) systematic approach to prioritisation of Scotland's public health challenges, which was evidence-based, transparent and made use of significant stakeholder engagement. Study design: Cross-sectional survey of stakeholders in deliberative meetings. Methods: An independent Expert Advisory Group (EAG) was formed to develop a typology of public health priorities, a long-list of potential priorities and ranking criteria. Deliberative stakeholder events were held at which the criteria were refined and priorities scored by participants from a wide range of stakeholder organisations. Results: The proposed typology identified three types of public health priorities: risk factors, social factors and system factors; medically defined disease entities were not used deliberately, to facilitate broad stakeholder participation. Fifteen criteria were identified to help identify priority issues, based on the scope of their burden, amenability to change, and multi-stakeholder preferences. Six public health priorities were selected by the EAG based on stakeholder scoring of a long-list against these criteria. Conclusion: Prioritisation is important in modern public health but it is challenging due to limited data availability, lack of agreed evidence on effectiveness and efficiency of interventions, and divergent stakeholder views. The Scottish experience nevertheless shows that useful public health priorities can be agreed upon by a wide range of stakeholders through a transparent, participatory and logical process.
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.