Skip to main content

Table 2 Study characteristics

From: Research evidence use in local government-led public health interventions: a systematic review

First author (year)

Study setting

Research design

Theoretical framework

Study quality (high/med/low)

Intervention method

Public health issue

Experiences of evidence use (level 1)

    

Armstrong (2014)

Australia: Victoria

Mixed: Qualitative interviews, Quantitative survey

Evidence-Informed Policy and Practice Pathway; Diffusion of Innovations Theory

High

Public policy development

Services, systems and policies

Atkins (2017) and

UK: England

Qualitative: Interviews

COM-B Model

High

Public policy development

Services, systems and policies

Kelly (2017)

Beenstock (2014)

UK: England

Qualitative: Thematic content analysis

Realist Viewpoint

High

Public policy development

Services, systems and policies

Hunter (2016) and

UK: England

Qualitative: Interviews, workshops

Kingdon's (1995) Multiple Streams Framework

High

Public policy development

Services, systems and policies

Marks (2015)

Kneale (2019)

UK: England

Qualitative: Interviews

 

High

Public policy development

Services, systems and policies

Larsen (2012)

Denmark: National

Quantitative: Survey

 

High

Public policy development

Services, systems and policies

McGill (2015)a

International: England, Brazil, USA and Canada

Qualitative: Focus groups

 

High

Public policy development

Social determinants/health equity

South (2020)

UK: Yorkshire and Humber Regions, England

Qualitative: Interviews

 

High

Public policy development

Services, systems and policies

Willmott (2015)

UK: England

Qualitative: Interviews

 

High

Public policy development

Services, systems and policies

Rossow (2015)

Norway

Qualitative: Content Analysis

Advocacy Coalition Framework/Weiss Conceptual Model

High

Advocacy and lobbying

Alcohol use behaviours

Marko (2020)

Australia: Metropolitan Melbourne, Victoria

Qualitative: Interviews

 

High

Public policy development

Gambling behaviours

Erwin (2019)

USA: National

Quantitative: Cross-sectional survey

 

High

Other methods (partnership)

Services, systems and policies

Frew (2020)

UK: England

Qualitative: Interviews, observation

 

Med

public policy development

Services, systems and policies

Martineau (2013)

UK: England and Wales

Qualitative: Document review, informal discussions

 

Med

Legislation and regulation

Alcohol use behaviours

Phillips (2015)

UK: England

Qualitative: Observation, interviews

 

Med

Public policy development

Social determinants/health equity

Purtle (2018)

USA: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Qualitative: Interviews, document review

 

Med

Legislation and regulation

Eating behaviours

Corburn (2007)a

USA: San Francisco

Qualitative: Observation, interviews, document review, media analysis

 

Low

HIA

Social determinants/health equity

Van Vliet (2018)a

Sweden: Norrkoping Municipality

Commentary

 

–

Public policy development

Social determinants/health equity

How/why evidence was used (level 2)

    

Gavens (2019)

UK: England

Qualitative: Interviews, focus groups

Critical Realist

High

Public policy development

Alcohol use behaviours

Reynolds (2018)a

UK: Greater London, England

Mixed: Ethnographic observation, interviews, surveys

 

High

Legislation and regulation

Alcohol use behaviours

Boyce (2018)a

USA: South Bronx, New York City

Quantitative: Pre-post intervention participant surveys

 

Med

Health education

Sexual health behaviours

Corburn (2014)*

USA: City of Richmond

Qualitative: observation, interviews, document review (HiAP)

 

Med

Public policy development

Social determinants/health equity

Von Heimburg (2017)a

Norway: Levanger and Verdal

Qualitative: Case study (HiAP)

 

Med

Public policy development

Social determinants/health equity

Kogel (2020)a

Spain: Sant Andreu

Qualitative: Various

 

Low

HIA

Social determinants/health equity

Elbers (2019)a

UK: Leeds City Council

Commentary

 

–

Research and evaluation

Gambling behaviours

Linzalone 2017)*

Italy: Municipality of Arezzo

Mixed: Focus groups, interviews, surveys

 

–

HIA

Social determinants/health equity

Rube (2014)a

USA: New York City

Commentary

 

–

Other methods (infrastructure development)

Built environment

Steer (2018)a

Canada: Region of Peel

Commentary

 

–

Public policy development

Tobacco use behaviours

Stated evidence use (level 3)

    

Browne (2017)

Australia: Victoria

Quantitative: Frequency counts

 

High

Public policy development

Services, systems and policies

Dobbinson (2020)

Australia: Brimbank City Council, Victoria

Quantitative: Case–control

 

High

Other methods (infrastructure development)

Lifestyle behaviours

Dannefer (2020)a

USA: New York City

Qualitative: Observation, interviews

 

Med

Other methods (infrastructure development)

Social determinants/health equity

Lederer (2014)a

USA: New York City

Commentary

 

–

Public policy development

Eating behaviours

  1. Stated research use level 3 = the study made a statement about research use; level 2 = level 3 + the study discussed how and/or why research was used; level 1 = level 2 + the study described stakeholder experiences of using research and/or barriers and facilitators of research use
  2. aDenotes studies co-authored by local government