ReviewPerspectives in public health2026
Evidence-based decision-making in a climate of political expediency: insights from local government.
Review in Perspectives in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Working with democratically elected councillors: Reflections on research engagement in local government.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- What Supports and Constrains the Implementation of Robust and Rapid Evaluation Within Local Government Public Health Systems?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Health inequalities tackled through intersectoral collaboration: longitudinal process issues and insights.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Exploring research capacity and capability in a local authority: qualitative insights from leaders and staff.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Baseline assessments of research capacity, capability and culture in UK local authorities: reflections from evaluators embedded in Health Determinants Research Collaborations.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsLocal authorities in England are responsible for public health and health promotion. This article sought to explore how research and decision-making co-exist in a local authority in England.
methodsAn Embedded Researcher was based within the local authority and used qualitative methodology to address the research aim. Interviews and focus groups were employed to ascertain a range of stakeholder views in the local authority. All transcripts were coded on NVivo 12 by the Embedded Researcher and two members of the research team cross-checked a sample for coding accuracy. Data were analysed using framework analysis.
resultsThe data suggest several barriers to using research to inform decision-making in health promotion and public health. The study shows that research is valued in local authorities, but not always privileged - this is due to cultural factors and practical political reasons which often means that decisions need to be made expediently. Participants outlined a juxtaposition between academic credibility; timeliness to complete the research and the financial cost associated with it; against the independence and credibility that independent academics could bring.
conclusionPolicy formulation and delivery is an integral aspect of health promotion and critical to achieving improved population health and reductions in health inequalities. However, there exists tensions between gathering research evidence and making research-informed decisions. The article concludes by advocating the use of Embedded Researchers to fully understand how research is gathered and used to support public health and health promotion policymaking.
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.