at BMJ Group
Driving your impact story and inspiring real change
Impact stories from our public health journals
Reduction of secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in households by face mask use, disinfection and social distancing: a cohort study in Beijing, China BMJ Global Health Yu Wang, Huaiyu Tian, Li Zhang, Man Zhang, Dandan Guo, Wenting Wu, Xingxing Zhang, Ge Lin Kan, Lei Jia, Da Huo, Baiwei Liu, Xiaoli Wang, Ying Sun, Quanyi Wang, Peng Yang and C. Raina MacIntyre May 2020 This article has received 458 academic citations, and garnered 63 citations in Health Policy Documents and Clinical Guidelines. See the full details below. Journal: Authors: Publication Date:
Real world impact
Cited:
in 63 documents (47 health policy docs, 16 clinical guidelines) from 10 countries with 30 different sources
Top sources
Citations by source
Citation source
Citing policy and guidance countries
Citing country
Australia Belgium Canada Czech Republic Germany Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) Ireland Spain UK USA
BMJ Impact Analytics May 2025
Academic impact im
Altmetric May 2025 and Dimensions May 2025 AAp
Let’s hear from the team that wrote this 2020 article published in BMJ Global Health
“Open access can enhance the societal impact of research work, especially for time-sensitive or policy- relevant research.”
This study was led by a team at the Beijing Centre for Disease Prevention and Control which included Professors Peng Yang and Quanyi Wang.
What inspired you to pursue research in this particular area? Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, there was limited understanding of the virus and disease. Household transmission was identified as a key factor in epidemic growth, yet evidence-based strategies to reduce such transmission were limited, and there was disagreement about the role of masks and other control measures. Our goal was to evaluate practical interventions in households, which had high transmission risk due to close and prolonged contact. Non- pharmaceutical interventions could have had an impact before vaccines were available, or in settings where there was limited healthcare capacity. We collected household data to compare the preventive measures taken by families with and without household transmission, and thus evaluated the effectiveness of preventive measures.
Read full article
How do you envision your research contributing to the broader field or addressing real-world issues? Our findings provided the first real-world evidence that mask use before symptom onset reduced household transmission efficiently, shifting global discourse on early masking and highlighting the importance of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission, which later became accepted. At the time, asymptomatic transmission was not widely accepted. There was a great deal of controversy over whether wearing masks could reduce the spread of the virus and whether the public should wear masks at that time. The study’s later inclusion in WHO and national guidelines validated its relevance. By proving that simple interventions work, even in crowded homes, we showed how families - especially in resource-limited settings - could take actionable steps without relying solely on healthcare systems. What motivated you to publish your work in an open access format? Given the urgent global need for accessible scientific knowledge during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, open access ensured that our findings would reach not only researchers but also frontline healthcare workers, policymakers, and the public. This aligned with our goal of maximizing the practical application of research. Open access allowed rapid translation of our mask-related evidence into public health action, such as WHO guidelines and community mask mandates.
What advice would you give to other researchers who are considering publishing their work in open access formats for the first time? Evaluate journals based on their reach, rigor, and alignment with your target audience, and choose journals that combine rigorous peer-review with commitment to global accessibility. Open access can enhance the societal impact of research work, especially for time-sensitive or policy-relevant research. One remaining source of inequity is that the burden of publication costs falls to authors, thus favouring wealthy countries, institutions and authors. Tracking metrics such as policy citations or public engagement can help assess broader impact. Open access increases research visibility and facilitates broader impact. Our article has been cited in 63 policy documents across 10 countries, demonstrating its utility in real-world decision-making. It also promotes equity by removing access barriers, allowing free access for all, and maximized the societal impact of our research to empower communities to adopt evidence-based interventions during a critical time. What do you see as the benefits of open access publishing compared to traditional publishing models?
Read full article
Return on investment of public health interventions: a systematic review
Journal: Authors:
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health Rebecca Masters, Elspeth Anwar, Brendan Collins, Richard Cookson, Simon Capewell March 2017
Publication Date:
This article has received 320 academic citations, and garnered 143 citations in Health Policy Documents and Clinical Guidelines. See the full details below.
Real world impact
Cited:
in 143 documents (136 health policy docs, 7 clinical guidelines) from 14 countries with 65 different sources
Top sources
Citation source
Citations by source
Citing policy and guidance countries
Citing country
UK USA Australia EU New Zealand Canada Spain Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) Finland South Africa Sweden Denmark Qatar Venezuela
BMJ Impact Analytics Apr 2025
Academic impact im
Altmetric Apr 2025 and Dimensions Apr 2025 AAp
“Publishing the article via open access enhanced its accessibility to policy makers and practitioners.” Let’s hear from the team that wrote this 2017 article published in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
The systematic review was led by a multidisciplinary team of Public Health Consultants, Health Economists and Academics, whose day to day work aims to guide public health policy and practice. What inspired you to pursue research in this particular area? We started work on the paper in 2014/15 when the UK Government was looking to make efficiency savings to public health budgets. We were concerned that these efficiency savings represented a false economy that would generate many billions of additional future costs to the NHS and wider UK economy and wanted to articulate what the potential opportunity cost of these cuts would be. The majority of us as authors are based in and around Liverpool, and can see the day to day impact that cuts to funding has on the fabric of our great city. We can see the disparities that exist within our own communities, and wanted our public health and academic practice to shine a light on the challenges that people face. Good health is hard to achieve and maintain, and too often there is a gap between policy, practice and lived experience within public health. We wanted to highlight the significant negative impact that budget cuts would have on peoples health, and how that would cost more to fix further down the line.
Read full article
How do you envision your research contributing to the broader field or addressing real-world issues? To see how a report written in the North of England has been so instrumental in influencing global health policy has been wonderful. It quickly spread around the world and it is heartening to see how it has been used to try and bridge the science and policy interface within public health – our paper is referenced in many policy docs and in the New York Times. Publishing the article via open access enhanced its accessibility to policy makers and practitioners. Our systematic review identified that Benjamin Franklin’s belief that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” was borne out by the costs-savings demonstrated by investment in public health. Our most conservative estimates identified that the opportunity cost of £200m cuts to public health funding in England would likely be in the region of £1.6bn. However we believe the actual figure to be considerably higher. Other studies looking at changes in spend over time, and looking at NICE modelling found similar results for the cost effectiveness of public health interventions. Recent analysis from the Health Foundation (Feb 2024) has identified that the public health grant in England has been cut by 27% on a real- terms per person basis since 2015/16 when our paper was published. Some of the greatest cuts have been to areas that are known to have very high returns economically, such as sexual health services. These cuts make no economic sense, as rates of STI’s are rising exponentially in the UK whilst sexual health services are at breaking point. Prevention spend on sexual health has reduced by 17% in England whilst demand for services has increased 36%. In the midst of this, health inequalities in the UK continue to worsen. The pandemic has highlighted the value of having a healthy population who are resilient to health shocks. The fact that a girl born today in the most deprived area of the UK will experience 20 years of poorer health compared to her more affluent neighbour is a political choice. There is ample academic literature that makes the case for investment in public health in order to improve outcomes; what we need now is the political will to deliver it. We need to see prevention on an industrial scale.
What do you see as the benefits of open access publishing compared to traditional publishing models? I think one of the benefits of open access has meant that there has been greater accessibility of the report, which in turn yields a greater reach. Many people working in public health in the UK are working in local authority or NHS settings and might not have access to library services to enable them to access scientific articles that sit behind a paywall.
Read full article
What is the impact of water sanitation and hygiene in healthcare facilities on care seeking behaviour and patient satisfaction? A systematic review BMJ Global Health Maha Bouzid, Oliver Cumming, Paul R Hunter March 2018 This article has received 105 academic citations, and garnered 53 citations in Health Policy Documents. See the full detail below. Journal: Authors: Publication Date:
Real world impact
Cited:
in 53 documents (health policy docs) from 6 countries with 12 different sources
Top sources
Citation source
Citations by Source
Citing policy and guidance countries
Citing country
Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) UK Chile
Guinea Uganda Thailand
BMJ Impact Analytics Apr 2025
Academic impact im
Altmetric May 2025 and Dimensions May 2025
Let’s hear from Paul Hunter, Norwich School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, about this 2018 article published in BMJ Global Health “The main reason for me to publish this work as open access was to address the needs of individuals who may utilise this research to enhance public health in low and middle income countries (LMICs).”
Paul Hunter is a professor in Medicine at Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia and was the first professor of health protection in the United Kingdom. He is a fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists, the Royal Society of Biology, and of the Faculty of Public Health.
What inspired you to pursue research in this particular area?
At the time, I was part of a World Health Organization group that was looking at water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in healthcare facilities around the world because a very high proportion of them lacked access to improved sanitation as well as reliable and safe drinking water. The WHO, United Nations and UNICEF were keen to develop a programme to try and improve this situation globally and we were looking to find good evidence to show the value of good WASH in healthcare. This was also the first systematic review to be published on this topic. How do you envision your research contributing to the broader field or addressing real-world issues? There is a critical need to improve WASH services in healthcare facilities. The Secretary-General of the United Nations made a speech at the time stressing the importance of WASH in healthcare. But the World Health Organization needed better evidence of the value of WASH and we provided that evidence. Our research has been picked up by various agencies around the world and is being used to influence national and international policies aimed at improving WASH in healthcare.
Read full article
What motivated you to publish your work in an open access format? A lot of my work is directed at low and middle income countries (LMICs) and I want people in these countries to have access to this information. I would always try to publish open access and there are other benefits, for example, in terms of it leading to more citations. The main reason for me to publish this work as open access was to address the needs of individuals who may utilise this research to enhance public health in low and middle income countries (LMICs). What advice would you give to other researchers who are considering publishing their work in open access formats for the first time? If you have the funds, then it’s always best to publish in an open access journal but check that it isn’t a predatory journal and that it’s from a reputable publisher. Also, if you are awarded a research grant, make sure that the budget allows for open access publication.
Read full article
Open Access at BMJ Group
“If you have the funds, then it’s always best to publish in an open access journal.” “...one of the benefits of open access has meant that there has been greater accessibility of [our work] which in turn yields a greater reach.” Rebecca Masters, Public Health Wales Professor Paul Hunter, University of East Anglia “Open access can enhance the societal impact of research work, especially for time-sensitive or policy-relevant research.” Professors Peng Yang and Quanyi Wang, Beijing Centre for Disease Prevention & Control
at BMJ Group
Explore our range of journals in
public health
Start your publishing journey with us
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14Powered by FlippingBook