Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41449420›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

Policy evaluation frameworks for rare diseases: a scoping review.

Mehtap Çakmak Barsbay, Muhammed Yusuf Aydamak

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Mehtap Çakmak BarsbayHealthcare Management Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Türkiye. mehtapcakmak@gmail.com.
Muhammed Yusuf AydamakHealthcare Management Department, Nezahat Keleşoğlu Health Sciences Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe epidemiological burden of rare diseases positions them as a global public health challenge. Because rare disease policies are heterogeneous and complex, evaluating their effectiveness requires a systematic and structured approach. Policy evaluation frameworks provide tools to understand how policies are defined, implemented, and assessed in different health systems. These frameworks help identify gaps in policy design and support the development of mechanisms to improve rare disease management. Although several policy evaluation methods have been proposed, no study has synthesized them in a structured and comparative manner. This study aims to map existing policy evaluation frameworks for rare diseases, describe their overarching structures, and propose recommendations for improvement.

resultsThis scoping review followed the Context, Population and Concept (CPC) structure to guide the search strategy. Databases and grey literature were searched from inception to 1 May 2025. Ultimately, five studies were included for extraction and evaluation. The context, population and concept of the included studies were categorized into three thematic domains: policy focus, policy problem, and stakeholder groups and collaboration.

conclusionsThe limited number of available frameworks underscores the need for further methodological development. While current approaches provide initial insights, they remain context-specific and lack a unified, transferable framework applicable to different health systems.

Indexed as

Health PolicyRare DiseasesHumansPolicy MakingHealth policiesHealth policy evaluationPolicy analysisPolicy evaluation frameworksRare diseases

Identifiers

PMID41449420
PMCPMC12849139

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.