Cargando…
Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour
BACKGROUND: In 2019, WHO prioritized updating recommendations relating to three labour induction topics: labour induction at or beyond term, mechanical methods for labour induction, and outpatient labour induction. As part of this process, we aimed to review the evidence addressing factors beyond cl...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9641799/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36344986 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00901-7 |
_version_ | 1784826162472550400 |
---|---|
author | Murano, Melissa Chou, Doris Costa, Maria Laura Turner, Tari |
author_facet | Murano, Melissa Chou, Doris Costa, Maria Laura Turner, Tari |
author_sort | Murano, Melissa |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: In 2019, WHO prioritized updating recommendations relating to three labour induction topics: labour induction at or beyond term, mechanical methods for labour induction, and outpatient labour induction. As part of this process, we aimed to review the evidence addressing factors beyond clinical effectiveness (values, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, and economic and feasibility considerations) to inform WHO Guideline Development Group decision-making using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework, and to reflect on how methods for identifying, synthesizing and integrating this evidence could be improved. METHODS: We adapted the framework to consider the key criteria and sub-criteria relevant to our intervention. We searched for qualitative and other evidence across a variety of sources and mapped the eligible evidence to country income setting and perspective. Eligibility assessment and quality appraisal of qualitative evidence syntheses was undertaken using a two-step process informed by the ENTREQ statement. We adopted an iterative approach to interpret the evidence and provided both summary and detailed findings to the decision-makers. We also undertook a review to reflect on opportunities to improve the process of applying the framework and identifying the evidence. RESULTS: Using the WHO-INTEGRATE framework allowed us to explore health rights and equity in a systematic and transparent way. We identified a lack of qualitative and other evidence from low- and middle-income settings and in populations that are most impacted by structural inequities or traditionally excluded from research. Our process review highlighted opportunities for future improvement, including adopting more systematic evidence mapping methods and working with social science researchers to strengthen theoretical understanding, methods and interpretation of the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to inform decision-making in a global guideline for induction of labour, we identified both challenges and opportunities relating to the lack of evidence in populations and settings of need and interest; the theoretical approach informing the development and application of WHO-INTEGRATE; and interpretation of the evidence. We hope these insights will be useful for primary researchers as well as the evidence synthesis and health decision-making communities, and ultimately contribute to a reduction in health inequities. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00901-7. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9641799 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96417992022-11-15 Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour Murano, Melissa Chou, Doris Costa, Maria Laura Turner, Tari Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: In 2019, WHO prioritized updating recommendations relating to three labour induction topics: labour induction at or beyond term, mechanical methods for labour induction, and outpatient labour induction. As part of this process, we aimed to review the evidence addressing factors beyond clinical effectiveness (values, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, and economic and feasibility considerations) to inform WHO Guideline Development Group decision-making using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework, and to reflect on how methods for identifying, synthesizing and integrating this evidence could be improved. METHODS: We adapted the framework to consider the key criteria and sub-criteria relevant to our intervention. We searched for qualitative and other evidence across a variety of sources and mapped the eligible evidence to country income setting and perspective. Eligibility assessment and quality appraisal of qualitative evidence syntheses was undertaken using a two-step process informed by the ENTREQ statement. We adopted an iterative approach to interpret the evidence and provided both summary and detailed findings to the decision-makers. We also undertook a review to reflect on opportunities to improve the process of applying the framework and identifying the evidence. RESULTS: Using the WHO-INTEGRATE framework allowed us to explore health rights and equity in a systematic and transparent way. We identified a lack of qualitative and other evidence from low- and middle-income settings and in populations that are most impacted by structural inequities or traditionally excluded from research. Our process review highlighted opportunities for future improvement, including adopting more systematic evidence mapping methods and working with social science researchers to strengthen theoretical understanding, methods and interpretation of the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to inform decision-making in a global guideline for induction of labour, we identified both challenges and opportunities relating to the lack of evidence in populations and settings of need and interest; the theoretical approach informing the development and application of WHO-INTEGRATE; and interpretation of the evidence. We hope these insights will be useful for primary researchers as well as the evidence synthesis and health decision-making communities, and ultimately contribute to a reduction in health inequities. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00901-7. BioMed Central 2022-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9641799/ /pubmed/36344986 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00901-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 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 | Research Murano, Melissa Chou, Doris Costa, Maria Laura Turner, Tari Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour |
title | Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour |
title_full | Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour |
title_fullStr | Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour |
title_full_unstemmed | Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour |
title_short | Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour |
title_sort | using the who-integrate evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9641799/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36344986 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00901-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT muranomelissa usingthewhointegrateevidencetodecisionframeworktodeveloprecommendationsforinductionoflabour AT choudoris usingthewhointegrateevidencetodecisionframeworktodeveloprecommendationsforinductionoflabour AT costamarialaura usingthewhointegrateevidencetodecisionframeworktodeveloprecommendationsforinductionoflabour AT turnertari usingthewhointegrateevidencetodecisionframeworktodeveloprecommendationsforinductionoflabour |