ArticleHealth research policy and systems2026
Towards socially robust policy modelling: scoping review of public involvement in computational policy modelling.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computational policy modelling appeals to policymakers seeking to understand potential outcomes of policy decisions, yet there are long-standing concerns about the "social robustness" of the knowledge it generates. A key route to socially robust policy modelling is the active involvement of publics as partners, and not only subjects, of modelling; yet the technical and abstracted nature of the modelling process poses particular challenges for conventional involvement practice. This scoping review of published computational modelling papers which report public involvement explores both practical elements of involvement in modelling and the tacit or explicit justifications authors offer for involving publics. We found a preponderance of professional stakeholders over "lay" publics and a bifurcation between informal feedback and highly structured input. We conclude that approaches to public involvement in computational policy modelling should seek ongoing dialogic involvement across the stages of the modelling process, be more attentive to power dynamics in the involvement process, and consider how involvement can be inclusive of diverse publics.
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.