ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
A contemporary approach to developing health policies: the Dubai Health Authority as a case study.
Article in Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Health governance is shifting from reactive decision-making to proactive, evidence-informed policy processes. In Dubai, the Dubai Health Authority's repositioning as a regulator and health-system steward created a need for a more systematic approach to health policy prioritization, development, and evaluation. Context: Health policy development in Dubai was historically strategy-driven and top-down. Although this supported rapid sectoral growth, it also risked fragmented decision-making, limited cross-system coordination, and inconsistent assessment of policy impact. Drawing on evidence-informed policymaking and Kingdon's multiple streams framework, the Strategy and Governance Department conceptualized policy development as the alignment of policy problems, technically feasible options, and political and stakeholder legitimacy. Programmatic elements: The methodology uses the Adjusted Priority Index, a semi-quantitative MCDA-informed agenda-setting tool, to prioritize prospective policy research topics according to legal feasibility, strategic alignment, government directives, risk, opportunity, urgency, and expected impact. Prioritized topics are then proceeded through structured policy labs covering problem definition, policy framework development, stakeholder analysis, situational assessment, benchmarking, alternatives analysis, theory of change, implementation planning, and impact assessment. Policy champions, internal guidelines, and recurring workshops support methodological consistency and institutional capacity. Discussion: Early outputs include a three-year health policy agenda, structured policy rationales, transparent prioritization records, stronger cross-departmental coordination, and improved methodological literacy among policy teams and stakeholders. These outputs indicate institutional uptake and implementation readiness, but not final policy effectiveness. Conclusion: Dubai's experience shows how evidence-informed policy methods can be adapted to a complex and rapidly evolving health system. Formal evaluation is needed to assess implementation quality, policy coherence, and longer-term contributions to health-system performance.
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.