Document analysis in health policy research: the READ approach

Dalglish, Sarah L; Khalid, Hina; McMahon, Shannon A.

doi:10.1093/heapol/czaa064

Cited by 260 publications

(235 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

229

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In accordance with The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners Rule 24: “The provision of health care for prisoners is a State responsibility. Prisoners should enjoy the same standards of health care that are available in the community, and should have access to necessary health-care services free of charge without discrimination on the grounds of their legal status.” [ 34 ]. This analysis shows that incarcerated people, regardless of age, are often given lower priority than individuals 65 years and older in the community.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

COVID-19 vaccine prioritization of incarcerated people relative to other vulnerable groups: An analysis of state plans

Strodel¹,

Dayton

Garrison-Desany

et al. 2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Carceral facilities are epicenters of the COVID-19 pandemic, placing incarcerated people at an elevated risk of COVID-19 infection. Due to the initial limited availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, all states have developed allocation plans that outline a phased distribution. This study uses document analysis to compare the relative prioritization of incarcerated people, correctional staff, and other groups at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and morbidity. Methods and findings We conducted a document analysis of the vaccine dissemination plans of all 50 US states and the District of Columbia using a triple-coding method. Documents included state COVID-19 vaccination plans and supplemental materials on vaccine prioritization from state health department websites as of December 31, 2020. We found that 22% of states prioritized incarcerated people in Phase 1, 29% of states in Phase 2, and 2% in Phase 3, while 47% of states did not explicitly specify in which phase people who are incarcerated will be eligible for vaccination. Incarcerated people were consistently not prioritized in Phase 1, while other vulnerable groups who shared similar environmental risk received this early prioritization. States’ plans prioritized in Phase 1: prison and jail workers (49%), law enforcement (63%), seniors (65+ years, 59%), and long-term care facility residents (100%). Conclusions This study demonstrates that states’ COVID-19 vaccine allocation plans do not prioritize incarcerated people and provide little to no guidance on vaccination protocols if they fall under other high-risk categories that receive earlier priority. Deprioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination misses a crucial opportunity for COVID-19 mitigation. It also raises ethical and equity concerns. As states move forward with their vaccine distribution, further work must be done to prioritize ethical allocation and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to incarcerated people.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We analyzed state vaccination allocation information using the READ approach of (1) readying materials, (2) extracting data from the documents, (3) analyzing that data, (4) distilling all findings [ 34 ]. We first collected state plans and supplemental information from health departments’ websites.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 vaccine prioritization of incarcerated people relative to other vulnerable groups: An analysis of state plans

Strodel¹,

Dayton

Garrison-Desany

et al. 2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sensitive search terms used included the following: (herbal medicine ∗ OR traditional medicine ∗ OR traditional Chinese medicine ∗ ) AND (regulation OR registration) AND (China OR Japan OR Korea OR Hong Kong OR Taiwan). Documentary analysis was employed to gather information about the TM/CM product regulatory approaches in selected countries/regions [ 45 ]. Information about the overall regulatory approach, listing of product formulas, major requirements and constraints for registrations, quality control requirements, and postmarket surveillance was extracted and used for comparison.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing the Regulation of Traditional and Complementary Medicine Products: A Comparison of Five Regulatory Systems on Traditional Medicines with a Long History of Use

Liang

et al. 2021

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. An appropriate regulatory system to ensure and promote the quality, safety, and efficacy of the products of traditional medicine (TM) and complementary medicine (CM) is critical to not only public health but also economic growth. The regulatory approach and evaluation standards for TM/CM products featured with a long history of use are yet to be developed. This study aims to investigate and compare the existing regulatory approaches for TM/CM products with a long history of use. Method. A mixed approach of documentary analysis involving official and legal documents from official websites, as well as a scoping review of scholarly work in scientific databases about regulatory systems of TM/CM products in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, was employed in this study and used for comparison. Results. For registration purposes, all five regulatory systems recognized the history of use as part of the totality of evidence when evaluating the safety and efficacy of TM/CM products with a long history of use. Generally, the list of classic formulas is predefined and bound to the formulas recommended in the prescribed list of ancient medical textbooks. Expedited pathways are usually in place and scientific data of nonclinical and clinical studies may be exempted. At the same time, additional restrictions with the scope of products constitute a comprehensive approach in the regulation. Quality assurance and postmarketing safety surveillance were found to be the major focus across the regulatory schemes investigated in this study. Conclusion. The regulatory systems investigated in this study allow less stringent registration requirements for TM/CM products featured with a long history of use, assuming safety and efficacy to be plausible based on historic use. Considering the safety and efficacy of these products, regulatory standards should emphasize the technical requirements for quality control and postmarket surveillance.

show abstract

“…Extracted data were analysed using framework analysis, 37 chosen for its alignment with document analysis, term-based research, contextual research questions and the flexibility it provides to apply a priori knowledge and emergent findings to establish an analysis framework. 35,37,38 Framework analysis involves five steps: familiarisation, identifying a framework, indexing, charting and mapping and interpretation. 37 Authors became familiar with the data during the extraction and checking step.…”

Section: Data Analysis and Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This research followed the READ (Ready materials, Extract data, Analyse data, Distil) approach to document analysis 35 and was informed by the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. 36 Core needs assessment reports published online by each of the 31 Australian PHNs were reviewed.…”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chronic pain and cardiovascular disease prevention in primary care: a review of Australian primary health network needs assessments

Walker

Cornell²,

Morgan

et al. 2021

Aust. Health Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Chronic pain and cardiovascular disease (CVD) have a high disease burden. This research aimed to understand whether Australian primary health networks (PHNs) are recognising the need for the prevention of these conditions by investigating what local health and service issues have been identified.Methods. Separate sets of needs assessments were analysed for chronic pain and CVD for all 31 PHNs using a document analysis approach. Framework analysis was undertaken to ascertain the types of health and service issues, prevention-related issues and supporting data sources identified, as well as to quantify the number of PHNs identifying these issues.Results. Fewer PHNs identified health issues for chronic pain (n ¼ 13) compared with CVD (n ¼ 30), with the most common being disease prevalence and burden supported by National Health Survey data. Service issues were identified by fewer than half the PHNs (n ¼ 13 for each disease), which were largely informed by stakeholder consultation and related to service integration, service accessibility and health professional training. Prevention-related issues were frequently identified for CVD (n ¼ 26), but not chronic pain (n ¼ 3).Conclusions. This paper highlights the need for a greater focus on chronic pain-and CVD-related issues by PHNs. This could be supported nationally by recognising chronic pain and risk factors in national datasets and PHN performance frameworks, and locally via greater stakeholder consultation to inform PHN population health planning.What is known about the topic? Chronic pain and CVD are the two leading causes of total disease burden in Australia. PHNs are well positioned to address prevention locally through population health planning, supporting primary healthcare providers, health care integration and coordination and commissioning necessary services. What does this paper add? This paper highlights gaps in data availability, the proportion of PHNs identifying local service issues for both chronic pain and CVD and health-and prevention-related issues for chronic pain. What are the implications for practitioners? Although PHNs are constrained by government priorities and funding, greater stakeholder consultation is one potentially promising strategy to overcome local data gaps to identifying and prioritising chronic pain and CVD prevention.

show abstract

Document analysis in health policy research: the READ approach

Cited by 260 publications

References 19 publications

COVID-19 vaccine prioritization of incarcerated people relative to other vulnerable groups: An analysis of state plans

COVID-19 vaccine prioritization of incarcerated people relative to other vulnerable groups: An analysis of state plans

Advancing the Regulation of Traditional and Complementary Medicine Products: A Comparison of Five Regulatory Systems on Traditional Medicines with a Long History of Use

Chronic pain and cardiovascular disease prevention in primary care: a review of Australian primary health network needs assessments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About