Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40514736›Full record

SynthesisArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2025

Contextual factors in systematic reviews: understanding public health interventions in low socioeconomic status and disadvantaged populations.

Mark Rodgers, Emily South, Melissa Harden, Margaret Whitehead, Amanda Sowden

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Mark RodgersCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK. mark.rodgers@york.ac.uk.
Emily SouthCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Melissa HardenCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Margaret WhiteheadDepartment of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Amanda SowdenCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research PR-PRU-1217-20901
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvaluations of public health interventions require an understanding of the contextual factors that shape their effectiveness. Context (including socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental factors) plays a critical role in establishing how interventions achieve impact, why outcomes can vary and whether the interventions of interest can be translated from one context to another. This overview explores the extent to which systematic reviews of public health interventions for low-income or low socioeconomic status (SES) populations report contextual factors influencing outcomes.

methodsSystematic reviews were identified through a scoping review and updated searches in March 2023. Reviews focused on interventions targeting smoking, unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, and harmful alcohol use in disadvantaged groups. Reviews were screened for eligibility, and data were extracted on contextual factors related to intervention implementation and effectiveness. Data were synthesised using a framework approach, categorising findings by behaviour and level of intervention.

resultsApplying a very broad definition of context, 29 of 86 identified reviews provided some degree of contextual data which varied across interventions but was largely restricted to intervention implementation and delivery factors. For example, environmental characteristics, such as crime and perceived personal safety, affected the use of physical activity infrastructure in disadvantaged areas. Food voucher schemes had mixed results, with social and economic factors affecting their use and effectiveness. However, most reviews lacked sufficient reporting on contextual data, limiting conclusions on the role of context in intervention outcomes.

conclusionsContextual factors are often underreported in systematic reviews of public health interventions targeting disadvantaged populations. Such underreporting is likely to be similar in other areas of public health. This limits policymakers' ability to adapt interventions to specific settings. Improved reporting and consideration of context in systematic reviews are needed to ensure that interventions are appropriately tailored to the needs of low-income and low SES groups.

Indexed as

Contextual factorsDisadvantaged populationsPublic health interventionsSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID40514736
PMCPMC12164178

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.