ArticleBMJ global health2021
How are mathematical models and results from mathematical models of vaccine-preventable diseases used, or not, by global health organisations?
Article in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive models for health outcomes due to SARS-CoV-2, including the effect of vaccination: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- A review and analysis of accountability in global health funding, research collaborations and training: towards conceptual clarity and better practice.BMJ global health · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Natural history parameters for enteric pathogens to inform modeling studies of diarrhea among children in low-resource settings: results from the MAL-ED longitudinal birth cohort.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Recent approaches in computational modelling for controlling pathogen threats.Life science alliance · 2024Review
- A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Outbreak Response Immunization Programs.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the use of modelling in resource allocation decisions for HIV and TB.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Estimating the impact of vaccination: lessons learned in the first phase of the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium.Gates open research · 2024Article
- Defining a malaria diagnostic pathway from innovation to adoption: Stakeholder perspectives on data and evidence gaps.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Human papillomavirus vaccination strategies for accelerating action towards cervical cancer elimination.The Lancet. Global health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While epidemiological and economic evidence has the potential to provide answers to questions, guide complex programmes and inform resource allocation decisions, how this evidence is used by global health organisations who commission it and what organisational actions are generated from the evidence remains unclear. This study applies analytical tools from organisational science to understand how evidence produced by infectious disease epidemiologists and health economists is used by global health organisations. A conceptual framework that embraces evidence use typologies and relates findings to the organisational process of action generation informs and structures the research. Between March and September 2020, we conducted in-depth interviews with mathematical modellers (evidence producers) and employees at global health organisations, who are involved in decision-making processes (evidence consumers). We found that commissioned epidemiological and economic evidence is used to track progress and provides a measure of success, both in terms of health outcomes and the organisations' mission. Global health organisations predominantly use this evidence to demonstrate accountability and solicit funding from external partners. We find common understanding and awareness across consumers and producers about the purposes and uses of these commissioned pieces of work and how they are distinct from more academic explorative research outputs. Conceptual evidence use best describes this process. Evidence is slowly integrated into organisational processes and is one of many influences on global health organisations' actions. Relationships developed over time and trust guide the process, which may lead to quite a concentrated cluster of those producing and commissioning models. These findings raise several insights relevant to the literature of research utilisation in organisations and evidence-based management. The study extends our understanding of how evidence is used and which organisational actions are generated as a result of commissioning epidemiological and economic evidence.
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.