Match!

The WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision framework version 1.0: integrating WHO norms and values and a complexity perspective

Published on Jan 1, 2019in BMJ Global Health
· DOI :10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000844
Eva Rehfuess29
Estimated H-index: 29
(LMU: Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich),
Jan M. Stratil4
Estimated H-index: 4
(LMU: Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich)
+ 3 AuthorsRob Baltussen40
Estimated H-index: 40
(Radboud University Nijmegen)
Abstract
Introduction Evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks intend to ensure that all criteria of relevance to a health decision are systematically considered. This paper, part of a series commissioned by the WHO, reports on the development of an EtD framework that is rooted in WHO norms and values, reflective of the changing global health landscape, and suitable for a range of interventions and complexity features. We also sought to assess the value of this framework to decision-makers at global and national levels, and to facilitate uptake through suggestions on how to prioritise criteria and methods to collect evidence. Methods In an iterative, principles-based approach, we developed the framework structure from WHO norms and values. Preliminary criteria were derived from key documents and supplemented with comprehensive subcriteria obtained through an overview of systematic reviews of criteria employed in health decision-making. We assessed to what extent the framework can accommodate features of complexity, and conducted key informant interviews among WHO guideline developers. Suggestions on methods were drawn from the literature and expert consultation. Results The new WHO-INTEGRATE (INTEGRATe Evidence) framework comprises six substantive criteria— balance of health benefits and harms , human rights and sociocultural acceptability , health equity , equality and non-discrimination , societal implications , financial and economic considerations , and feasibility and health system considerations —and the meta-criterion quality of evidence . It is intended to facilitate a structured process of reflection and discussion in a problem-specific and context-specific manner from the start of a guideline development or other health decision-making process. For each criterion, the framework offers a definition, subcriteria and example questions; it also suggests relevant primary research and evidence synthesis methods and approaches to assessing quality of evidence. Conclusion The framework is deliberately labelled version 1.0. We expect further modifications based on focus group discussions in four countries, example applications and input across concerned disciplines.
  • References (83)
  • Citations (11)
📖 Papers frequently viewed together
12 Citations
8 Citations
8 Citations
78% of Scinapse members use related papers. After signing in, all features are FREE.
References83
Newest
#1Julian P. T. Higgins (UoB: University of Bristol)H-Index: 99
#2Sally Green (UCL: University College London)H-Index: 50
The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
7,644 Citations
#1Andrew Booth Ba (University of Sheffield)H-Index: 43
#2Jane Noyes (Bangor University)H-Index: 35
Last. Elham Shakibazadeh (Tehran University of Medical Sciences)H-Index: 7
view all 6 authors...
When making decisions about complex interventions, guideline development groups need to factor in the sociocultural acceptability of an intervention, as well as contextual factors that impact on the feasibility of that intervention. Qualitative evidence synthesis offers one method of exploring these issues. This paper considers the extent to which current methods of question formulation are meeting this challenge. It builds on a rapid review of 38 different frameworks for formulating questions. ...
6 CitationsSource
#1Andrew Booth Ba (University of Sheffield)H-Index: 43
#2Graham Moore (Cardiff University)H-Index: 27
Last. Jane Noyes (Bangor University)H-Index: 35
view all 7 authors...
8 CitationsSource
#1Kate Flemming (Ebor: University of York)H-Index: 21
#2Andrew Booth Ba (University of Sheffield)H-Index: 43
Last. Jane Noyes (Bangor University)H-Index: 35
view all 5 authors...
This paper is one of a series exploring the implications of complexity for systematic reviews and guideline development, commissioned by the WHO. The paper specifically explores the role of qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative evidence synthesis is the broad term for the group of methods used to undertake systematic reviews of qualitative research evidence. As an approach, qualitative evidence synthesis is increasingly recognised as having a key role to play in addressing questions relati...
11 CitationsSource
#1Jane Noyes (Bangor University)H-Index: 35
#2Andrew Booth Ba (University of Sheffield)H-Index: 43
Last. Elham Shakibazadeh (Tehran University of Medical Sciences)H-Index: 7
view all 6 authors...
8 CitationsSource
#1Mark Petticrew (Lond: University of London)H-Index: 78
#2Cécile Knai (Lond: University of London)H-Index: 25
Last. Elizabeth McGill (Lond: University of London)H-Index: 5
view all 9 authors...
12 CitationsSource
#1Paul MontgomeryH-Index: 38
#2Ani Movsisyan (University of Oxford)H-Index: 4
Last. Eva Rehfuess (LMU: Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich)H-Index: 29
view all 5 authors...
Public health interventions and health technologies are commonly described as 'complex', as they involve multiple interacting components and outcomes, and their effects are largely influenced by contextual interactions and system-level processes. Systematic reviewers and guideline developers evaluating the effects of these complex interventions and technologies report difficulties in using existing methods and frameworks, such as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluat...
4 CitationsSource
#1Mahmoud Abbasi (Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and Health Services)H-Index: 6
#2Reza Majdzadeh (Tehran University of Medical Sciences)H-Index: 39
Last. Forouzan Akrami (Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and Health Services)H-Index: 3
view all 5 authors...
Given the evolution of the public health (PH) and the changes from the phenomenon of globalization, this area has encountered new ethical challenges. In order to find a coherent approach to address ethical issues in PH policy, this study aimed to identify the evolution of public health ethics (PHE) frameworks and the main moral values and norms in PH practice and policy. According to the research questions, a systematic search of the literature, in English, with no time limit was performed using...
6 CitationsSource
#1Noor Tromp (Radboud University Nijmegen)H-Index: 9
#2Rozar Prawiranegara (UNPAD: Padjadjaran University)H-Index: 3
Last. Rob Baltussen (Radboud University Nijmegen)H-Index: 40
view all 14 authors...
textabstractObjective: International guidelines recommend countries to expand antiretroviral therapy (ART) to all HIV-infected individuals and establish local-level priorities in relation to other treatment, prevention and mitigation interventions through fair processes. However, no practical guidance is provided for such priority-setting processes. Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) fill this gap and combine stakeholder deliberation to incorporate relevant social values with ration...
3 CitationsSource
#1Simon Lewin (South African Medical Research Council)H-Index: 6
#2Andrew Booth Ba (University of Sheffield)H-Index: 43
Last. Jane Noyes (Bangor University)H-Index: 35
view all 13 authors...
The GRADE-CERQual (‘Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research’) approach provides guidance for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research (or qualitative evidence syntheses). The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. Confidence in the evidence from qualitative evidence syntheses is an ass...
69 CitationsSource
Cited By11
Newest
#1Jan M. StratilH-Index: 4
#2Rob BaltussenH-Index: 40
Last. Eva RehfuessH-Index: 29
view all 5 authors...
Background Decision-making in public health and health policy is complex and requires careful deliberation of many and sometimes conflicting normative and technical criteria. Several approaches and tools, such as multi-criteria decision analysis, health technology assessments and evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks, have been proposed to guide decision-makers in selecting the criteria most relevant and appropriate for a transparent decision-making process. This study forms part of the developm...
Source
#1Andrew D. Oxman (University of Oslo)H-Index: 3
#2Laura Martínez García (Cochrane Collaboration)H-Index: 13
Background: The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts are principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects. The Key Concepts provide a framework for developing learning-resources to help people use the concepts when treatment claims are made, and when they make health choices. Objective: To compare the framework provided by the IHC Key Concepts to other frameworks intended to promote critical thinking about treatment (intervention) claims and choices. Methods:...
Source
#1Zhenghan Wang (USYD: University of Sydney)H-Index: 41
#1Zhicheng Wang (USYD: University of Sydney)H-Index: 3
Last. Lisa A. Bero (USYD: University of Sydney)H-Index: 64
view all 4 authors...
Properly implemented evidence-based clinical and public health guidelines can improve patient outcomes. WHO has been a major contributor to guideline development, publishing more than 250 guidelines on various topics since 2008. However, well-developed guidelines can only be effective if they are adequately and appropriately implemented. Herein, we aimed to explore whether and how WHO guidelines are implemented in local contexts to inform the success of future guideline implementation. Seventeen...
Source
#1David Gough (UCL: University College London)H-Index: 40
#2James Thomas (UCL: University College London)H-Index: 36
Last. Sandy Oliver (UJ: University of Johannesburg)H-Index: 28
view all 3 authors...
This paper builds on a 2012 paper by the same authors which argued that the types and brands of systematic review do not sufficiently differentiate between the many dimensions of different review questions and review methods (Gough et al., Syst Rev 1:28, 2012). The current paper extends this argument by considering the dynamic contexts, or ‘evidence ecosystems’, within which reviews are undertaken; the fact that these ecosystems are constantly changing; and the relevance of this broader context ...
Source
#1Lisa A. Bero (USYD: University of Sydney)H-Index: 64
#2Susan L. Norris (WHO: World Health Organization)H-Index: 28
Last. Mark Lawrence (Deakin University)H-Index: 60
view all 3 authors...
Guidelines must ask the right questions and incorporate complexity to improve their relevance and quality, argue Lisa Bero and colleagues
2 CitationsSource
#1Andrew Booth Ba (University of Sheffield)H-Index: 43
#2Jane Noyes (Bangor University)H-Index: 35
Last. Elham Shakibazadeh (Tehran University of Medical Sciences)H-Index: 7
view all 6 authors...
When making decisions about complex interventions, guideline development groups need to factor in the sociocultural acceptability of an intervention, as well as contextual factors that impact on the feasibility of that intervention. Qualitative evidence synthesis offers one method of exploring these issues. This paper considers the extent to which current methods of question formulation are meeting this challenge. It builds on a rapid review of 38 different frameworks for formulating questions. ...
6 CitationsSource
#1Susan L. Norris (WHO: World Health Organization)H-Index: 28
#2Eva Rehfuess (LMU: Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich)H-Index: 29
Last. Anayda Portela (WHO: World Health Organization)H-Index: 11
view all 7 authors...
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development calls for real transformation, recognising that health goes beyond survival to include human rights, equity and the empowerment of vulnerable populations, including women and children.1 This Agenda demands strategies to address the underlying causes of ill health and inequity to achieve sustained improvements in health by ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages. Within this context, governments and programmes struggle to mak...
1 CitationsSource
#1Kate Flemming (Ebor: University of York)H-Index: 21
#2Andrew Booth Ba (University of Sheffield)H-Index: 43
Last. Jane Noyes (Bangor University)H-Index: 35
view all 5 authors...
This paper is one of a series exploring the implications of complexity for systematic reviews and guideline development, commissioned by the WHO. The paper specifically explores the role of qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative evidence synthesis is the broad term for the group of methods used to undertake systematic reviews of qualitative research evidence. As an approach, qualitative evidence synthesis is increasingly recognised as having a key role to play in addressing questions relati...
11 CitationsSource
#1Jane Noyes (Bangor University)H-Index: 35
#2Andrew Booth Ba (University of Sheffield)H-Index: 43
Last. Elham Shakibazadeh (Tehran University of Medical Sciences)H-Index: 7
view all 6 authors...
8 CitationsSource
#2José A. López-López (UoB: University of Bristol)H-Index: 10
Last. Deborah M CaldwellH-Index: 28
view all 11 authors...
8 CitationsSource