Options
Frameworks to support evidence-informed decision-making in public health and infectious disease prevention and control: a scoping review
Journal
Eurosurveillance
Date Issued
2025-05-15
Author(s)
Yang Song
Javier Bracchiglione
Jose F Meneses-Echávez
Helena de Carvalho Gomes
Barbara Albiger
Ivan Solà
David Rigau
Pablo Alonso-Coello
Abstract
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Background</jats:title>
<jats:p>Evidence-informed public health decision-making (EIDM) is a complex process that must consider multiple factors.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Aim</jats:title>
<jats:p>We aimed to identify and describe existing frameworks supporting evidence-informed public health decision-making and their application to infectious disease.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>We conducted a scoping review to describe current EIDM framework use in public health. We included decision-making frameworks in public health and examples of their use in infectious diseases. We searched MEDLINE and Health Systems Evidence from inception to December 2022. We also hand searched websites of relevant organisations and conducted a forward citation search of the included frameworks. Two reviewers selected studies independently, one reviewer extracted data and one cross-checked for accuracy. We presented the results narratively.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>We included 15 frameworks. Seven had a generic scope and eight were focused on specific topics (immunisation, COVID-19 or other, non-infectious diseases). From the included frameworks, we identified a total of 18 criteria with each framework assessing a median of eight, the most frequent being ‘desirable effects’, ‘resources considerations’ and ‘feasibility’. We identified infectious disease examples for four frameworks: ‘Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation’ (GRADE), WHO-INTEGRATe Evidence (WHO-INTEGRATE), ‘Ethics, Equity, Feasibility, and Acceptability’ (EEFA) and ‘Community Preventive Services Task Force’ (CPSTF) evidence-to-decision frameworks.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title>
<jats:p>Although several EIDM frameworks exist for public health decision-making, most have not been widely applied to infectious diseases. Current EIDM frameworks inconsistently address factors for public health decision-making. Further application and evaluation, and possibly adaptation of existing frameworks, is required to optimise decision-making in public health and infectious diseases.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:title>Background</jats:title>
<jats:p>Evidence-informed public health decision-making (EIDM) is a complex process that must consider multiple factors.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Aim</jats:title>
<jats:p>We aimed to identify and describe existing frameworks supporting evidence-informed public health decision-making and their application to infectious disease.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>We conducted a scoping review to describe current EIDM framework use in public health. We included decision-making frameworks in public health and examples of their use in infectious diseases. We searched MEDLINE and Health Systems Evidence from inception to December 2022. We also hand searched websites of relevant organisations and conducted a forward citation search of the included frameworks. Two reviewers selected studies independently, one reviewer extracted data and one cross-checked for accuracy. We presented the results narratively.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>We included 15 frameworks. Seven had a generic scope and eight were focused on specific topics (immunisation, COVID-19 or other, non-infectious diseases). From the included frameworks, we identified a total of 18 criteria with each framework assessing a median of eight, the most frequent being ‘desirable effects’, ‘resources considerations’ and ‘feasibility’. We identified infectious disease examples for four frameworks: ‘Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation’ (GRADE), WHO-INTEGRATe Evidence (WHO-INTEGRATE), ‘Ethics, Equity, Feasibility, and Acceptability’ (EEFA) and ‘Community Preventive Services Task Force’ (CPSTF) evidence-to-decision frameworks.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title>
<jats:p>Although several EIDM frameworks exist for public health decision-making, most have not been widely applied to infectious diseases. Current EIDM frameworks inconsistently address factors for public health decision-making. Further application and evaluation, and possibly adaptation of existing frameworks, is required to optimise decision-making in public health and infectious diseases.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>