Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38028253›Full record

ReviewPublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2023

A bibliographic review of sustainability research output and investment in 10 leading public health journals across three time periods.

Alix Hall, Luke Wolfenden, Carly Gardner, Brydie McEvoy, Cassandra Lane, Rachel C Shelton, Tameka McFadyen, Daniel C W Lee, Adam Shoesmith, Karly Austin and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors.

Alix HallSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Luke WolfendenSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Carly GardnerSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Brydie McEvoySchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Cassandra LaneSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Rachel C SheltonMailman School of Public Health, Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Tameka McFadyenSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Daniel C W LeeSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Adam ShoesmithSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Karly AustinSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Nicole NathanSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Long-term delivery, or sustainability, of evidence-based interventions is necessary for public health benefits to be realised. However, sustainment of effective interventions is poor. Understanding the evidence-base and identifying potential gaps is necessary to inform where future research efforts are most warranted. Study design: We undertook a repeat cross-sectional bibliographic review of research published in 10 public health journals across three time periods (2010, 2015 and 2020/2021). Methods: Studies were eligible if they were a data-based study or review article. Studies were assessed as to whether they focused on sustainability. The percentage of public health research studies assessing sustainability overall and by the three time periods was calculated. The association between time period and the proportion of sustainability articles was assessed using logistic regression. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise study characteristics overall and by time period. Results: 10,588 data-based articles were identified, of which 1.3 % (n = 136) focused on sustainability. There was a statistically significant association between time period and the proportion of sustainability research, with a slight increase across the three time periods: 0.3 % (95 % CI: 0.1 %, 0.7 %) in 2010, 1.4 % (95 % CI: 1.0 %, 1.9 %) in 2015 and 1.6 % (95 % CI: 1.3 %, 1.9 %) in 2020/2021. Most research was descriptive/epidemiological (n = 69, 51 %), few focused on measurement (n = 2, 1.5 %) and none on cost effectiveness. Only one intervention study assessed the effect of specific sustainability strategies. Conclusions: This bibliographic review highlights the need for more public health research on sustainability, particularly in the areas of measurement, sustainability interventions, and cost effectiveness.

Indexed as

Bibliographic reviewEvidence-based interventionsLong-term implementationPublic healthResearch outputSustainability

Identifiers

PMID38028253
PMCPMC10654021

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.