Cargando…

Evidence-to-decision frameworks: a review and analysis to inform decision-making for environmental health interventions

BACKGROUND: Evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks provide a structured and transparent approach for groups of experts to use when formulating recommendations or making decisions. While extensively used for clinical and public health recommendations, EtD frameworks are not in widespread use in enviro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Norris, Susan L., Aung, Max T., Chartres, Nicholas, Woodruff, Tracey J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8653547/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34876125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00794-z
_version_ 1784611687832223744
author Norris, Susan L.
Aung, Max T.
Chartres, Nicholas
Woodruff, Tracey J.
author_facet Norris, Susan L.
Aung, Max T.
Chartres, Nicholas
Woodruff, Tracey J.
author_sort Norris, Susan L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks provide a structured and transparent approach for groups of experts to use when formulating recommendations or making decisions. While extensively used for clinical and public health recommendations, EtD frameworks are not in widespread use in environmental health. This review sought to identify, compare and contrast key EtD frameworks for decisions on interventions used in clinical medicine, public health or environmental health. This information can be used to develop an EtD framework suitable for formulating recommendations for interventions in environmental health. METHODS: We identified a convenience sample of EtD frameworks used by a range of organizations. We searched Medline for systematic reviews of frameworks. We summarized the decision criteria in the selected frameworks and reviews in a qualitative manner. FINDINGS: Fourteen organizations provided 18 EtD frameworks; most frameworks focused on clinical medicine or public health interventions; four focused on environmental health and three on economic considerations. Harms of interventions were examined in all frameworks and benefits in all but one. Other criteria included certainty of the body of evidence (15 frameworks), resource considerations (15), feasibility (13), equity (12), values (11), acceptability (11), and human rights (2). There was variation in how specific criteria were defined. The five identified systematic reviews reported a similar spectrum of EtD criteria. INTERPRETATION: The EtD frameworks examined encompassed similar criteria, with tailoring to specific audience needs. Existing frameworks are a useful starting point for development of one tailored to decision-making in environmental health. FUNDER: JPB Foundation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12940-021-00794-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8653547
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86535472021-12-08 Evidence-to-decision frameworks: a review and analysis to inform decision-making for environmental health interventions Norris, Susan L. Aung, Max T. Chartres, Nicholas Woodruff, Tracey J. Environ Health Review BACKGROUND: Evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks provide a structured and transparent approach for groups of experts to use when formulating recommendations or making decisions. While extensively used for clinical and public health recommendations, EtD frameworks are not in widespread use in environmental health. This review sought to identify, compare and contrast key EtD frameworks for decisions on interventions used in clinical medicine, public health or environmental health. This information can be used to develop an EtD framework suitable for formulating recommendations for interventions in environmental health. METHODS: We identified a convenience sample of EtD frameworks used by a range of organizations. We searched Medline for systematic reviews of frameworks. We summarized the decision criteria in the selected frameworks and reviews in a qualitative manner. FINDINGS: Fourteen organizations provided 18 EtD frameworks; most frameworks focused on clinical medicine or public health interventions; four focused on environmental health and three on economic considerations. Harms of interventions were examined in all frameworks and benefits in all but one. Other criteria included certainty of the body of evidence (15 frameworks), resource considerations (15), feasibility (13), equity (12), values (11), acceptability (11), and human rights (2). There was variation in how specific criteria were defined. The five identified systematic reviews reported a similar spectrum of EtD criteria. INTERPRETATION: The EtD frameworks examined encompassed similar criteria, with tailoring to specific audience needs. Existing frameworks are a useful starting point for development of one tailored to decision-making in environmental health. FUNDER: JPB Foundation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12940-021-00794-z. BioMed Central 2021-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8653547/ /pubmed/34876125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00794-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Norris, Susan L.
Aung, Max T.
Chartres, Nicholas
Woodruff, Tracey J.
Evidence-to-decision frameworks: a review and analysis to inform decision-making for environmental health interventions
title Evidence-to-decision frameworks: a review and analysis to inform decision-making for environmental health interventions
title_full Evidence-to-decision frameworks: a review and analysis to inform decision-making for environmental health interventions
title_fullStr Evidence-to-decision frameworks: a review and analysis to inform decision-making for environmental health interventions
title_full_unstemmed Evidence-to-decision frameworks: a review and analysis to inform decision-making for environmental health interventions
title_short Evidence-to-decision frameworks: a review and analysis to inform decision-making for environmental health interventions
title_sort evidence-to-decision frameworks: a review and analysis to inform decision-making for environmental health interventions
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8653547/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34876125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00794-z
work_keys_str_mv AT norrissusanl evidencetodecisionframeworksareviewandanalysistoinformdecisionmakingforenvironmentalhealthinterventions
AT aungmaxt evidencetodecisionframeworksareviewandanalysistoinformdecisionmakingforenvironmentalhealthinterventions
AT chartresnicholas evidencetodecisionframeworksareviewandanalysistoinformdecisionmakingforenvironmentalhealthinterventions
AT woodrufftraceyj evidencetodecisionframeworksareviewandanalysistoinformdecisionmakingforenvironmentalhealthinterventions