Cited by 45Public Health Policies and EducationEvaluation and Performance AssessmentMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Developing an Evidence Base for Policies and Interventions to Address Health Inequalities: The Analysis of “Public Health Regimes”

Open access
ASTHANA, SHEENA, HALLIDAY, JOYCE·2006·The Milbank Quarterly

Abstract

Systematic reviews have become an important methodology in the United Kingdom by which research informs health policy, and their use now extends beyond evidence‐based medicine to evidence‐based public health and, particularly, health inequalities policies. This article reviews the limitations of systematic reviews as stand‐alone tools for this purpose and suggests a complementary approach to make better use of the evidence. That is, systematic reviews and other sources of evidence should be incorporated into a wider analytical framework, the public health regime (defined here as the specific legislative, social, political, and economic structures that have an impact on both public health and the appropriateness and effectiveness of public health interventions adopted). At the national level this approach would facilitate analysis at all levels of the policy framework, countering the current focus on individual interventions. It could also differentiate at the international level between those policies and interventions that are effective in different contexts and are therefore potentially generalizable and those that depend on particular conditions for success.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2006.00459.x

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • At least 2 typologies have been offered of modal ways in which public health laws may influence health outcomes.

    “At least 2 typologies have been offered of modal ways in which public health laws may influence health outcomes.”

    From The scientific basis for law as a public health tool (2009) · cites this paper as [14]

  • Mensah et al. list 7 broad types of behavioral influences that flow from public health laws.

    “Mensah et al. list 7 broad types of behavioral influences that flow from public health laws.”

    From The scientific basis for law as a public health tool (2009) · cites this paper as [14]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bull, J., G. McCormick, C. Swann, and C. Mulvihill. 2004. Ante-and Post-Natal Home-Visiting Programmes: A Review of Reviews. London: Health Development Agency.
  2. Grayson, L. 2002. Evidence Based Policy and the Quality of Evidence: Re- thinking Peer Review. Working Paper 7. London: ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.
  3. Mellor, J., and J. Milyo. 2001. Income Inequality and Health. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20:151-55.
  4. Paterson, I., and K. Judge. 2002. Equality of Access to Health Care. In Reducing Inequalities in Health: A European Perspective, edited by J. Mackenbach and M. Bakker, 169-87. London: Routledge.
  5. Pawson, R., and N. Tilley. 1997. Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage Publications.
  6. Platt, S., A. Amos, W. Gnich, and O. Parry. 2002. Smoking Policies. In Reducing Inequalities in Health: A European Perspective, edited by J. Mackenbach and M. Bakker, 125-43. London: Routledge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
ASTHANA, S., & HALLIDAY, J.
Affiliations
University of Plymouth (GB)
Corresponding author
ASTHANA, SHEENA
Venue
The Milbank Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-08-29
Volume
84
Issue
3
Pages
577-603
ISSN
  • 0887-378X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-0009
OpenAlex
W2139483147
Cited by
45
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Milbank Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
health disparities, systematic reviews, evidence-based public health, health policy, policy analysis, public health interventions
MeSH terms
United Kingdom, Health Policy, Health Services Accessibility, Health Services Research, Humans, Public Health, Public Health Administration, Socioeconomic Factors, State Medicine, Evidence-Based Medicine, Internationality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review