Dataset Information

How much evidence is there that political factors are related to population health outcomes? An internationally comparative systematic review.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To provide a 7-year update of the most recent systematic review about the relationships between political features and population health outcomes. SETTING:Internationally comparative scholarly literature. DATA SOURCES:Ten scholarly bibliographic databases plus supplementary searches in bibliographies and Google Scholar were used to update a previous systematic review. The final search was conducted in November 2017. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Any population health outcome measure, apart from healthcare spending. RESULTS:73 unique publications were identified from the previous systematic review. The database searches to update the literature identified 45?356 raw records with 35?207 remaining following de-duplication. 55 publications were identified from supplementary searches. In total, 258 publications proceeded to full-text review and 176 were included in narrative synthesis. 85 studies were assessed at low risk of bias, 89 at moderate risk of bias and none at high risk of bias. Assessment could not be conducted for two studies that had only book chapters. No meta-analysis was conducted. 102 studies assessed welfare state generosity and 79 found a positive association. Of the 17 studies that assessed political tradition, 15 were found to show a positive association with the left-of-centre tradition. 44 studies assessed democracy and 34 found a positive association. 28 studies assessed globalisation and 14 found a negative association, while seven were positive and seven inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS:This review concludes that welfare state generosity, left-of-centre democratic political tradition and democracy are generally positively associated with population health. Globalisation may be negatively associated with population health, but the results are less conclusive. It is important for the academic public health community to engage with the political evidence base in its research as well as in stakeholder engagement, in order to facilitate positive outcomes for population health.

SUBMITTER: Barnish M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6196855 | biostudies-other | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How much evidence is there that political factors are related to population health outcomes? An internationally comparative systematic review.

Barnish Max M Tørnes Michelle M Nelson-Horne Becky B

BMJ open 20181018 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>To provide a 7-year update of the most recent systematic review about the relationships between political features and population health outcomes.<h4>Setting</h4>Internationally comparative scholarly literature.<h4>Data sources</h4>Ten scholarly bibliographic databases plus supplementary searches in bibliographies and Google Scholar were used to update a previous systematic review. The final search was conducted in November 2017.<h4>Primary and secondary outcome measures</h4>A ...[more]

PMID: 30341112

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing recognition that the development of evidence-informed health policy is not only a technical problem of knowledge exchange or translation, but also a political challenge. Yet, while political scientists have long considered the nature of political systems, the role of institutional structures, and the political contestation of policy issues as central to understanding policy decisions, these issues remain largely unexplored by scholars of evidence-informed policy making.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of empirical studies that examined the influence of key features of political systems and institutional mechanisms on evidence use, and contextual factors that may contribute to the politicisation of health evidence. Eligible studies were identified through searches of seven health and social sciences databases, websites of relevant organisations, the British Library database, and manual searches of academic journals. Relevant findings were extracted using a uniform data extraction tool and synthesised by narrative review.Findings56 studies were selected for inclusion. Relevant political and institutional aspects affecting the use of health evidence included the level of state centralisation and democratisation, the influence of external donors and organisations, the organisation and function of bureaucracies, and the framing of evidence in relation to social norms and values. However, our understanding of such influences remains piecemeal given the limited number of empirical analyses on this subject, the paucity of comparative works, and the limited consideration of political and institutional theory in these studies.ConclusionsThis review highlights the need for a more explicit engagement with the political and institutional factors affecting the use of health evidence in decision-making. A more nuanced understanding of evidence use in health policy making requires both additional empirical studies of evidence use, and an engagement with theories and approaches beyond the current remit of public health or knowledge utilisation studies.

Project description:BackgroundInterventions using positive psychology (PP), which build on positive qualities of healthcare personnel and institutions, could potentially enhance organisational performance in healthcare. The aim of this systematic review was to identify if PP interventions have an impact on organisational performance of healthcare personnel, and if so, how this impact can be achieved. We developed a logic model to explain the impact of PP interventions on organisational performance.MethodsWe searched Web of Science, Medline, Psychinfo, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL (from inception until March 2019) and references of included articles to identify studies that evaluated the impact of a PP intervention for health personnel. Study quality was assessed using the SQUIRE checklist for quality improvement studies. Data were extracted about study details, setting, participants, intervention, method of evaluation and results. Outcomes, mechanisms and contexts were coded in nVivo. Data synthesis was guided by Lewis' theory of the impact of PP interventions on organisational performance and Kneale et al.'s method for logic model development. Collected data were integrated into a logic model explaining initial inputs, processes, and intermediate outcomes of PP interventions that lead to improved organisational performance in healthcare settings.ResultsWe retrieved 4638 articles and identified five through references of included articles of which 29 studies (31 articles) met our inclusion criteria. Most articles were of low quality (n = 19) and outcome measures varied widely. We identified 54 different outcomes of PP interventions, including 'improved well-being' and 'improved interaction and support'. Forty-nine mechanisms were identified including 'recognising and reframing negative interpretations'. Twenty four contextual factors were identified of which seven acted as barriers. 'Managerial support' was a facilitator mentioned in eight studies. All identified outcomes, mechanisms and contextual factors were integrated into a logic model explaining how interventions using PP can impact organisational performance in healthcare.ConclusionFew identified outcomes were statistically significant, however, trends in both quantitative and qualitative outcomes show that PP interventions can increase well-being and interaction and support and thus improve organisational performance in healthcare. The developed logic model can be used in the implementation and evaluation of interventions using PP for health personnel.

Project description:A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all effectiveness trials for a specific health area. This will allow results of studies to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate, as well as ensuring that all trials contribute usable information. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative aims to support the development, reporting and adoption of COS. Central to this is a publically accessible online resource, populated with all available COS. The aim of the review we report here was to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes or domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition and to describe the methodological techniques used in these studies.We developed a multi-faceted search strategy for electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Methodology Register). We included studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition.A total of 250 reports relating to 198 studies were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies covered various areas of health, most commonly cancer, rheumatology, neurology, heart and circulation, and dentistry and oral health. A variety of methods have been used to develop COS, including semi-structured discussion, unstructured group discussion, the Delphi Technique, Consensus Development Conference, surveys and Nominal Group Technique. The most common groups involved were clinical experts and non-clinical research experts. Thirty-one (16%) studies reported that the public had been involved in the process. The geographic locations of participants were predominantly North America (n?=?164; 83%) and Europe (n?=?150; 76%).This systematic review identified many health areas where a COS has been developed, but also highlights important gaps. It is a further step towards a comprehensive, up-to-date database of COS. In addition, it shows the need for methodological guidance, including how to engage key stakeholder groups, particularly members of the public.

Project description:IntroductionThe effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for improving athletic performance in healthy athletes is unclear. Assessing the effect of SMT on other performance outcomes in asymptomatic populations may provide insight into the management of athletes where direct evidence may not be available. Our objective was to systematically review the literature on the effect of SMT on performance-related outcomes in asymptomatic adults.MethodsMEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from 1990 to March 23, 2018. Inclusion criteria was any study examining a performance-related outcome of SMT in asymptomatic adults. Methodological quality was assessed using the SIGN criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were considered scientifically admissible for a best evidence synthesis. We calculated the between group mean change and 95% confidence intervals.ResultsOf 1415 articles screened, 20 studies had low risk of bias, seven were randomized crossover trials, 10 were randomized controlled trials (RCT) and three were RCT pilot trials. Four studies showed SMT had no effect on physiological parameters at rest or during exercise. There was no effect of SMT on scapular kinematics or transversus abdominus thickness. Three studies identified changes in muscle activation of the upper or lower limb, compared to two that did not. Five studies showed changes in range of motion (ROM). One study showed an increase lumbar proprioception and two identified changes in baropodometric variables after SMT. Sport-specific studies show no effect of SMT except for a small increase in basketball free-throw accuracy.ConclusionThe preponderance of evidence suggests that SMT in comparison to sham or other interventions does not enhance performance-based outcomes in asymptomatic adult population. All studies are exploratory with immediate effects. In the few studies suggesting a positive immediate effect, the importance of such change is uncertain. Further high-quality performance specific studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.

Dataset Information

How much evidence is there that political factors are related to population health outcomes? An internationally comparative systematic review.

Publications

How much evidence is there that political factors are related to population health outcomes? An internationally comparative systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets