ReviewBMC global and public health2026
Navigating evidence-informed decision making for arboviral disease control in Pacific Island countries.
Review in BMC global and 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Arboviral disease control is a priority for Pacific Island countries (PICs), where dengue outbreaks occur frequently. This perspective applies the World Health Organization (WHO)'s evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) framework to examine opportunities and challenges in generating, translating and using evidence to guide arboviral disease control in PICs, using the Wolbachia mosquito release intervention as a case study. The implementation of Wolbachia in several Pacific countries was achieved in the absence of a comprehensive evidence ecosystem, highlighting gaps in EIDM processes. In particular, limited local evidence on intervention effectiveness, combined with challenges in disease surveillance, data accessibility and entomological monitoring, has hindered robust evaluation of public health impact and decisions on scale-up and sustainability. Opportunities exist to strengthen EIDM through pragmatic use of existing surveillance data, time-series analysis and serological studies to assess impact. An untapped reservoir of tacit evidence can be harnessed through culturally appropriate methodologies, such as Talanoa, to contextualise scientific data and address gaps in qualitative research. Closer connections between evidence generators and users can facilitate more effective collective decision-making in Pacific settings. The WHO EIDM framework is useful for Pacific populations to chart pathways towards improved arboviral disease control, with pragmatic considerations of its application in Pacific contexts. Enhanced collaborations and transdisciplinary programs offer further opportunities to align interventions with regional health priorities for integrated EIDM. Policy dialogues using culturally appropriate approaches and leveraging the advantage of simpler systems can greatly improve the efficiency of knowledge translation pathways for EIDM in PICs.
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.