ArticleBMJ open2024
E-participation in policy-making for health: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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.
- Barriers and opportunities for participation in health policy decision-making by civil society groups organized for cancer in Chile: a qualitative study.Health research policy and systems · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFor the general public, e-participation represents a potential solution to the challenges associated with in-person participation in health policy-making processes. By fostering democratic engagement, e-participation can enhance civic legitimacy and trust in public institutions. However, despite its importance, there is currently a gap in the literature regarding a comprehensive synthesis of studies on various aspects of e-participation in the health policy domain. These aspects include levels of participation, underlying mechanisms, barriers, facilitators, values and outcomes. To address this gap, our proposed scoping review aims to systematically investigate and classify the available literature related to e-participation in policy-making for health. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will employ the Population, Concept and Context framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). Our population of interest will consist of participants involved in policy-making for health, including both government organisers of e-participation and participating citizens (the governed). To identify relevant studies, we will systematically search databases such as CINAHL (EBSCO), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest), Scopus (Elsevier), EMBASE (Elsevier), The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Campbell Collaboration, JBI Evidence Synthesis and PubMed using a predefined search strategy. Two independent reviewers will conduct a three-tiered screening process for identified articles, with a third reviewer resolving any discrepancies. Data extraction will follow a predefined yet flexible form. The results will be summarised in a narrative format, presented either in tabular or diagrammatic form. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The National Institute of Health Research of the Islamic Republic of Iran's ethics committee has approved this review study. Our findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and targeted knowledge-sharing sessions with relevant stakeholders.
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.