Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38412286›Full record

ReviewHealth policy and planning2024

Prospective policy analysis-a critical interpretive synthesis review.

Ligia Paina, Ruth Young, Oyinkansola Oladapo, Jose Leandro, Zhixi Chen, Takeru Igusa

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health policy and planning, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ligia PainaHealth Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Ruth YoungHealth Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Oyinkansola OladapoHealth Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Jose LeandroHealth Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Zhixi ChenDepartment of Civil and Systems Engineering, Johns Hopkins University Whiting School of Engineering, 3400 N Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
Takeru IgusaDepartment of Civil and Systems Engineering, Johns Hopkins University Whiting School of Engineering, 3400 N Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Johns Hopkins University Catalyst Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most policy analysis methods and approaches are applied retrospectively. As a result, there have been calls for more documentation of the political-economy factors central to health care reforms in real-time. We sought to highlight the methods and previous applications of prospective policy analysis (PPA) in the literature to document purposeful use of PPA and reflect on opportunities and drawbacks. We used a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach as our initial scoping revealed that PPA is inconsistently defined in the literature. While we found several examples of PPA, all were researcher-led, most were published recently and few described mechanisms for engagement in the policy process. In addition, methods used were often summarily described and reported on relatively short prospective time horizons. Most of the studies stemmed from high-income countries and, across our sample, did not always clearly outline the rationale for a PPA and how this analysis was conceptualized. That only about one-fifth of the articles explicitly defined PPA underscores the fact that researchers and practitioners conducting PPA should better document their intent and reflect on key elements essential for PPA. Despite a wide recognition that policy processes are dynamic and ideally require multifaceted and longitudinal examination, the PPA approach is not currently frequently documented in the literature. However, the few articles reported in this paper might overestimate gaps in PPA applications. More likely, researchers are embedded in policy processes prospectively but do not necessarily write their articles from that perspective, and analyses led by non-academics might not make their way into the published literature. Future research should feature examples of testing and refining the proposed framework, as well as designing and reporting on PPA. Even when policy-maker engagement might not be feasible, real-time policy monitoring might have value in and of itself.

Indexed as

Health Care ReformPolicy MakingHealth PolicyHumansIncomeProspective StudiesRetrospective Studiescritical interpretive synthesishealth systems researchPolicy analysis

Identifiers

PMID38412286
PMCPMC11005837
OpenAlexW4392187970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.