ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Towards an international research agenda for public health advocacy: Practice, preparedness and knowledge gaps.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. 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
Advocacy is a core function of public health practice and is essential for advancing population health, whether by promoting preventative measures or encouraging evidence-based policy reform. However, public health advocates, globally, face considerable barriers, including limited knowledge of effective strategies, resource constraints (such as time and funding), low prioritisation within organisations, and interference from powerful commercial industries seeking to impede policy change. To better support advocacy efforts, we sought to understand global advocacy practices, identify effective strategies, and determine where additional resources or evidence are most needed. We conducted an online cross-sectional survey with 156 self-identified public health advocates across 36 countries. Most respondents (80%) reported engaging in advocacy regularly, dedicating approximately half of their work time on related activities. Working in coalitions on policy issues was one of the most frequently used and effective strategies. While 61% of respondents felt well-equipped with advocacy knowledge, many reported gaps in other areas of preparedness, including insufficient funding, lack of time, limited access to networks, and gaps in advocacy skills, particularly regarding engaging with industry. Notably, respondents from middle-income countries reported higher self-assessed advocacy skills than those from low- or high-income countries. These findings highlight the need for tailored support and resources, particularly in relation to capacity building and evidence generation. In response, we propose a research agenda to address the most pressing issues facing public health advocates, globally.
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.