ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Ecuador's 2025 presidential election and the disconnection between public health and the political agendas.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In Latin America, public health proposals by presidential candidates often lack methodological rigor, limiting their feasibility and impact. Evidence-based planning aligned with national health priorities and disease burden is essential to address critical issues such as chronic diseases, mental health, and healthcare access. Objective: This study evaluates the methodological robustness of public health policy proposals from 16 Ecuadorian presidential candidates for the 2025-2029 elections. The assessment focuses on key health variables, analyzing the presence of SMART objectives, epidemiological evidence, and alignment with local and global health priorities. Methods: A systematic evaluation framework was applied to analyze the health components of each candidate's plan. The study used internationally recognized policy evaluation models, including the CDC's Six-Step Policy Evaluation Framework and the UK Magenta Book Guidelines. Health variables were weighted based on national priorities, with percentage scores assigned according to alignment with GBD 2021 Ecuador data. Each proposal was assessed for inclusion or omission of these variables, allowing for a comparative ranking of methodological rigor. Results: The analysis of public health proposals from Ecuadorian presidential candidates revealed significant methodological deficiencies. A total of 81% of proposals lacked SMART objectives, limiting their ability to establish measurable goals. 76% failed to integrate key health determinants such as environmental health, intersectoral collaboration, and research funding. 92% did not include a defined financial strategy, raising concerns about feasibility. Only one candidate (Noboa/Pinto) scored above 50% compliance with the GBD Ecuador 2021 priorities. Mental health and infectious disease prevention were the most frequently addressed topics, while air pollution, food safety, and post-market drug surveillance were largely overlooked. Chronic disease care, environmental sanitation, and vaccine production were among the most underrepresented health priorities. Conclusion: Public health proposals from Ecuadorian presidential candidates (2025-2029) showed major methodological gaps, with 81% lacking SMART objectives and 92% lacking financial plans. Key areas such as neonatal care and non-communicable disease prevention were often omitted. A more systematic, evidence-based approach is needed, supported by collaboration between policymakers, researchers, and international health agencies.
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.