Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25838508›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Trading quality for relevance: non-health decision-makers' use of evidence on the social determinants of health.

Elizabeth McGill, Matt Egan, Mark Petticrew, Lesley Mountford, Sarah Milton, Margaret Whitehead, Karen Lock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Elizabeth McGillDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, NIHR School for Public Health Research, London, UK.
Matt EganDepartment of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, NIHR School for Public Health Research, London, UK.
Mark PetticrewDepartment of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, NIHR School for Public Health Research, London, UK.
Lesley MountfordDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, NIHR School for Public Health Research, London, UK Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Sarah MiltonDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, NIHR School for Public Health Research, London, UK.
Margaret WhiteheadDepartment of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, NIHR School for Public Health Research, Liverpool, UK.
Karen LockDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, NIHR School for Public Health Research, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

City PlanningDecision MakingEnvironment DesignEvidence-Based PracticeLocal GovernmentPublic PolicySocial Determinants of HealthBrazilCanadaFocus GroupsHousingHumansQualitative ResearchTransportationUnited KingdomUnited StatespolicyPublic healthQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID25838508
PMCPMC4390684

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.