Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39521457›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Exploring how to widen the acceptability of public health interventions: a systematic review protocol.

Kaitlin Conway-Moore, Fiona Graham, Alison R McKinlay, Jack Birch, Emily Oliver, Clare Bambra, Michael P Kelly, Chris Bonell

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
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

8 authors.

Kaitlin Conway-MooreNIHR Policy Research Unit Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0128-3922
Fiona GrahamNIHR Policy Research Unit Behavioural and Social Sciences, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Alison R McKinlayNIHR Policy Research Unit Behavioural and Social Sciences, Centre for Behaviour Change, Department of Clinical, Educationaland Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3271-3502
Jack BirchNIHR Policy Research Unit Behavioural and Social Sciences, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Emily OliverNIHR Policy Research Unit Behavioural and Social Sciences, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Clare BambraNIHR Policy Research Unit Behavioural and Social Sciences, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Michael P KellyNIHR Policy Research Unit Behavioural and Social Sciences, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Chris BonellNIHR Policy Research Unit Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK chris.bonell@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6253-6498

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHealth interventions that require significant change to individual lifestyles or social norms can pose a challenge for widespread public acceptability and uptake. At the same time, over the last two decades, there has been increasing attention paid to the rise of populist movements globally, defined by 'the people' pushing against 'an elite' viewed as depriving the people of their sovereignty. To understand potential overlap in these two areas, this study aims to synthesise existing international evidence on linkages between populist attitudes and reduced uptake, acceptability, adherence and/or effectiveness of public health interventions. The goal of this work is to create a conceptual framework that can be used to inform policy strategies aimed at widening the impact of public health interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be performed via searches across databases and websites relevant to public health and social science research, informed by preliminary searches on the topic. There will be no language restrictions, but included studies will be limited to those produced since 2008, the year of the global financial crisis, from which most current literature on populism dates. Risk of bias will be assessed using validated tools according to study design. Due to expected heterogeneity across included studies, this will be a systematic review without meta-analysis. Findings will be synthesised narratively, and the strength of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The review will be reported according to the Systematic Reviews without Meta-Analysis reporting guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review is not required for this study. Public dissemination will be informed via consultation with our Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Strategy Group, along with reporting via peer-reviewed publication, relevant international conferences, a policy brief and a workshop with public health and communications experts. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024513124.

Indexed as

Public HealthHealth PromotionHumansResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicHealth policyPublic healthSocial medicine

Identifiers

PMID39521457
PMCPMC11551972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.