ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025
Health evidence meets politics: informing the development and evaluation of electoral platforms in Lebanon.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhilst significant efforts have been undertaken to strengthen the role of evidence in policymaking, there is still limited work aiming to strengthen the role of evidence in electoral platforms, which are provided to inform citizens' voting decisions in democratic systems. This study aims to develop a guide targeted at political parties and candidates to support them in developing and communicating electoral platforms that are action-oriented, evidence-based and responsive to people needs. It also aims to pilot test and apply an evaluation tool to understand how political platforms are developed in Lebanon, a sectarian-based country, including main gaps, areas for improvement and use of evidence.
methodsTo develop the guide, we searched electronic databases and websites to identify documents on the development and evaluation of electoral platforms. We also mapped a sample of existing electoral platforms from democratic countries. Building on the guide, we generated a standard evaluation tool - referred to as K2Platform tool - for scoring electoral platforms. The tool was first pilot tested and then used to evaluate electoral platforms of candidates running for the 2022 Lebanese Parliamentary elections.
resultsWe included 25 relevant articles that informed the development of the guide and evaluation tool. The guide presents the main phases and criteria involved in planning, designing and communicating electoral platforms. The K2Platform evaluation tool incorporates a set of 12 criteria and was used to evaluate 20 electoral platforms. The evaluation identified shortcomings in the electoral platforms, mainly the limited use of evidence and the absence of timelines and measurable indicators.
conclusionsThe guide and K2Platform evaluation tool will make a breakthrough in how electoral platforms are designed to ensure they are transparent, action-oriented and responsive to people's needs. They provide essential criteria for political parties and other candidates to develop evidence-informed electoral platforms that can be translated into effective laws and policies. Our work supports evidence-informed policymaking and contributes to the science of knowledge translation by examining the use of evidence in informing electoral platforms.
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.