Shared information objects in policy support

This page is a nugget. The page identifier is Op_en6997
Moderator:Jouni (see all)
Give your opinion to the peer rating of the content of this page. {{ #opasnet_rater: }}
Upload data	Unlike most other pages in Opasnet, the nuggets have predetermined authors, and you cannot freely edit the contents. Note! If you want to protect the nugget you've created from unauthorized editing click here

This page is a manuscript to be submitted to F1000 Research as a software tool article [1]. The main focus is on variable and ovariable structure and use, but their use within OpasnetUtils and implementation in Urgenche building model are described as well, thus making this valid as software tool article.

We welcome the description of new software tools. A Software Tool Article should include the rationale for the development of the tool and details of the code used for its construction. The article should provide examples of suitable input data sets and include an example of the output that can be expected from the tool and how this output should be interpreted.

Authors

Jouni T. Tuomisto^1*, Mikko Pohjola¹, Teemu Rintala¹, Marjo Niittynen¹, Einari Happonen¹, Clive Sabel²

1 National Institute for Health and Welfare, Department of Environmental Health. P.O.Box 95, FI-70701 Kuopio, Finland.

2 University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

3 Other?

^*corresponding author

Jouni T. Tuomisto: jouni.tuomisto [] thl.fi

Mikko Pohjola: mikko.pohjola [] thl.fi

Teemu Rintala: teemu.rintala [] thl.fi

Marjo Niittynen: marjo.niittynen [] thl.fi

Einari Happonen: einari.happonen [] soketti.fi

Clive Sabel: c.sabel [] bristol.ac.uk

Title

Shared information objects in policy support

Abstract

Up to 300 words long

There is an increasing demand for evidence-based decision-making and for more intimate discussions between experts and policy-makers. However, one of the many problems is that the information flow from research articles to policy briefings is very fragmented. We developed shared information objects with standard structures so that they can be used for both scientific and policy analyses and that all participants can discuss, develop, and use the same objects for different purposes.

We identified a need for two distinct objects: First, assessment describes a practical decision-specific information need with decision options and preferences about their impacts. Second, variables describe scientific estimates of relevant issues such as exposures, health impacts, or costs. Variables are reusable in several assessments, and they can be continuously developed and updated based on the newest data.

We implemented assessments and variables as wikipages to enable discussions about and public development of their contents. In addition, variables were quantitatively implemented as objects in statistical software R, and assessments used them in object-oriented programming. All functions and objects are freely distributed as R package OpasnetUtils. Several important properties for decision analysis were developed with variables, e.g. flexible indexing of variable results, propagation of uncertainties and scenarios through models, and possibility to write and run models on a web-workspace simply with a web browser.

The concept was tested in several projects with different decision situations related to environmental health. We present here a city-level building model to assess health impacts of energy consumption and fine particle emissions. Technically, the data collection on the wiki pages and the model development using shared information objects succeeded as expected. The main challenge is to develop a user community that is willing to and capable of sharing information between other groups and using these tools to improve shared understanding among policy-makers, experts, and stakeholders.

Keywords

Decision making, science-policy interface, expertise, open policy practice, decision analysis, object-oriented programming, R software, shared understanding.

Main Body

Introduction

• Need for better discussion between experts and decision makers (SA program, VNK money)
• However, differences:
  • Slow research studies
  • Experts stay out of value questions
  • Independence
  • Quick policy cycle, reactive approach
  • Different languages, need for more time to read and think but where does the time come from?

Methods, providing details of Implementation and Operation

Shared info objects. Why & requirements

• Continuous flow of information synthesis. You only need the tip of iceberg but its there if you check
• followup of the process
• moderated discussion forum

Implementation

Operation

Results (optional)

• Variables
• Ovariables
• Wiki working

Use Cases (optional)

• Urgenche model?
• Energy balance?
• HIA?

Discussion/Conclusions

The Introduction should provide context as to why the software tool was developed and what need it addresses. It is good scholarly practice to mention previously developed tools that address similar needs, and why the current tool is needed.

The Methods should include a subsection on Implementation describing how the tool works and any relevant technical details required for implementation; and a subsection on Operation, which should include the minimal system requirements needed to run the software and an overview of the workflow.

A Results section is only required if the paper includes novel data or analyses, and should be written as a traditional results section. Please include a section on Use Cases if the paper does not include novel data or analyses. Examples of input and output files should be provided with some explanatory context. Any novel or complex variable parameters should be explained in sufficient detail to enable users to understand and use the tool's functionality.

A Discussion (e.g. if the paper includes novel data or analyses) or Conclusions should include a brief discussion of allowances made (if any) for controlling bias or unwanted sources of variability, and the limitations of any novel datasets. Reproducibility: F1000Research is committed to serving the research community by ensuring that all articles include sufficient information to allow others to reproduce the work. With this in mind, Methods sections should provide sufficient details of the materials and methods used so that the work can be repeated by others. The section should also include a brief discussion of allowances made (if any) for controlling bias or unwanted sources of variability. Any limitations of the datasets should be discussed. When antibodies are used, the species in which the antibody was raised, the manufacturing company or source laboratory, the catalogue or reference number, and whether it is a polyclonal or monoclonal antibody should be included. In addition, if the antibody has been previously validated, a reference to the validation study should be included. If the antibody has not been validated, full details of the dilution and use of the antibody should be given in the Methods section.

Data and Software Availability

All articles reporting new research findings must be accompanied by the underlying source data - see our policies for more information. Please include details of how the data were analysed to produce the various results (tables, graphs etc.) shown (i.e. what statistical tests were used). If a piece of software code was used, please provide details of how to access this code (if not proprietary). See also our Data Preparation guidelines for further guidance on data presentation and formatting.

If you have already deposited your datasets or used data that are already available online or elsewhere, please include a ‘Data Availability’ section, providing full details of how and where the data can be accessed. This should be done in the style of, for example:

Source code for new software should be made available on a Version Control System (VCS) such as GitHub, BitBucket or SourceForge, and provide details of the repository and the license under which the software can be used in the article. The F1000Research team will assist with data and/or software deposition and help generate this section, where needed.

Author Contributions

JT and MP developed the idea and information structure of assessments and variables. TR developed their implementation in R with help from JT and EH. JT, MN, TR and CS developed the city building case study and its model. All authors were involved in the revision of the draft manuscript and have agreed to the final content.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant Information

This work was funded by EU FP6 project INTARESE Grant ### (for Mikko Pohjola), EU FP7 project URGENCHE Grant#### (for Marjo Niittynen and Einari Happonen), and National Institute for Health and Welfare.

Acknowledgments

This section should acknowledge anyone who contributed to the research or the writing of the article but who does not qualify as an author; please clearly state how they contributed. Please note that grant funding should be listed in the “Grant Information” section.

Supplementary Material

There are no figure or table limits for articles in F1000Research and most material can be included in the main article if desired. Other types of additional information, e.g. questionnaires, extra or supporting images or tables can be submitted as supplementary material. Please include a section entitled ’Supplementary Material’ at the end of the manuscript, providing a title and short description for each supplementary file. Please also include citations to the supplementary files in the text of the main body of the article. The F1000Research editorial team will liaise with authors to determine the most appropriate way to display this material.

References

• Journal abbreviations should follow the Index Medicus/MEDLINE abbreviation approach.
• Only articles, datasets and abstracts that have been published or are in press, or are available through public e-print/preprint servers/data repositories, may be cited. Unpublished abstracts, papers that have been submitted but not yet accepted, and personal communications should instead be included in the text; they should be referred to as ‘personal communications’ or ‘unpublished reports’ and the researchers involved should be named. Authors are responsible for getting permission to quote any personal communications from the cited individuals.

Figures and Tables

All figures and tables should be cited and discussed in the article text. Figure legends and tables should be added at the end of the manuscript. Tables should be formatted using the ‘insert table’ function in Word, or provided as an Excel file. For larger tables or spreadsheets of data, please see our Data Preparation guidelines. Files for figures are usually best uploaded as separate files through the submission system (see below for information on formats).

Figure formats: For all figures, the color mode should be RGB or grayscale. Line art: Examples of line art include graphs, diagrams, flow charts and phylogenetic trees. Please make sure that text is at least 8pt, the lines are thick enough to be clearly seen at the size the image will likely be displayed (between 75-150 mm width, which converts to one or two columns width, respectively), and that the font size and type is consistent between images. Figures should be created using a white background to ensure that they display correctly online.

If you submit a graph, please export the graph as an EPS file using the program you used to create the graph (e.g. SPSS). If this is not possible, please send us the original file in which the graph was created (e.g. if you created the graph in Excel, send us the Excel file with the embedded graph).