ArticleBMJ open2015
Trading quality for relevance: non-health decision-makers' use of evidence on the social determinants of health.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Strategies for knowledge exchange for action to address place-based determinants of health inequalities: an umbrella review.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Research evidence use in local government-led public health interventions: a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Pooled it
- Qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective: A systematic review and framework for public health evaluators.PLoS medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Mechanisms of impact of alcohol availability interventions from the perspective of 63 diverse alcohol licensing stakeholders: a qualitative interview study.Drugs (Abingdon, England) · 2024Article
- Using community-based geographical information system (GIS) to recruit older Asian Americans in an Alzheimer's disease study.BMJ open · 2023Review
- Dissemination of knowledge from Cochrane Public Health reviews: a bibliographic study.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Systems Thinking and Complexity Science Methods and the Policy Process in Non-communicable Disease Prevention: A Systematic Scoping Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- Factors of the policy process influencing Health in All Policies in local government: A scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Addressing alcohol-related harms in the local night-time economy: a qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Can intersectionality help with understanding and tackling health inequalities? Perspectives of professional stakeholders.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Dynamic meta-analysis: a method of using global evidence for local decision making.BMC biology · 2021Article
- Case study research for better evaluations of complex interventions: rationale and challenges.BMC medicine · 2020Article
- Decision-making for active living infrastructure in new communities: a qualitative study in England.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Obstacles and opportunities to using research evidence in local public health decision-making in England.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Article
- Political priorities and public health services in English local authorities: the case of tobacco control and smoking cessation services.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2018Article
- What Enables and Constrains the Inclusion of the Social Determinants of Health Inequities in Government Policy Agendas? A Narrative Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2018Review
- Evidence-based medicine meets democracy: the role of evidence-based public health guidelines in local government.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2017Article
- Competing for space in an already crowded market: a mixed methods study of why an online community of practice (CoP) for alcohol harm reduction failed to generate interest amongst the group of public health professionals at which it was aimed.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- Reversing the pipeline? Implementing public health evidence-based guidance in english local government.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLocal government services and policies affect health determinants across many sectors such as planning, transportation, housing and leisure. Researchers and policymakers have argued that decisions affecting wider determinants of health, well-being and inequalities should be informed by evidence. This study explores how information and evidence are defined, assessed and utilised by local professionals situated beyond the health sector, but whose decisions potentially affect health: in this case, practitioners working in design, planning and maintenance of the built environment.
designA qualitative study using three focus groups. A thematic analysis was undertaken.
settingThe focus groups were held in UK localities and involved local practitioners working in two UK regions, as well as in Brazil, USA and Canada.
participantsUK and international practitioners working in the design and management of the built environment at a local government level.
resultsParticipants described a range of data and information that constitutes evidence, of which academic research is only one part. Built environment decision-makers value empirical evidence, but also emphasise the legitimacy and relevance of less empirical ways of thinking through narratives that associate their work to art and philosophy. Participants prioritised evidence on the acceptability, deliverability and sustainability of interventions over evidence of longer term outcomes (including many health outcomes). Participants generally privileged local information, including personal experiences and local data, but were less willing to accept evidence from contexts perceived to be different from their own.
conclusionsLocal-level built environment practitioners utilise evidence to make decisions, but their view of 'best evidence' appears to prioritise local relevance over academic rigour. Academics can facilitate evidence-informed local decisions affecting social determinants of health by working with relevant practitioners to improve the quality of local data and evaluations, and by advancing approaches to improve the external validity of academic research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.