Stanford Victoria, Gresh Lionel, Toledo Joao, Méndez Jairo, Aldighieri Sylvain, Reveiz Ludovic
Evidence and Intelligence for Action in Health Department, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, USA.
Incident Management System for the Covid-19 Response. Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, USA.
Lancet Reg Health Am. 2022 Oct;14:100322. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2022.100322. Epub 2022 Jul 20.
The pace of the COVID-19 pandemic poses an unprecedented challenge to the evidence-to-decision process. Latin American countries have responded to COVID-19 by introducing interventions to both mitigate the risk of infection and to treat cases. Understanding how evidence is used to inform government-level decision-making at a national scale is crucial for informing country and regional actors in ongoing response efforts.
This study was undertaken between February-May 2021 and aims to characterise the best available evidence (BAE) and assess the extent to which it was used to inform decision-making in 21 Latin American countries, in relation to pharmaceutical (PI) and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) related to COVID-19, including the use of therapeutics (corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine and ivermectin), facemask use in the community setting and the use of diagnostic tests as a requirement for international travel.
A three-phase methodology was used to; () characterise the BAE for each intervention using an umbrella review, () identify government-level decisions for each intervention through a document review and () assess the use of evidence to inform decisions using a novel adapted framework analysis.
The BAE is characterized by 17 living and non-living systematic reviews as evolving, and particularly uncertain for NPIs. 107 country-level documents show variation in both content and timing of decision outcomes across intervention types, with the majority of decisions taken at a time of evidence uncertainty, with only 5 documents including BAE. Seven out of eight key indicators of an evidence-to-decision process were identified more frequently among PIs than either NPI of facemask use or testing prior to travel. Overall evidence use was reported more frequently among PIs than either NPI of facemask use or travel testing (92%, 28% and 29%, respectively).
There are limitations in the extent to which evidence use in decision-making is reported across the Latin America region. Institutionalising this process and grounding it in existing and emerging methodologies can facilitate the rapid response in an emergency setting.
No funding was sourced for this work.
新冠疫情的发展速度给循证决策过程带来了前所未有的挑战。拉丁美洲国家通过采取干预措施来应对新冠疫情,这些措施旨在降低感染风险并治疗病例。了解如何利用证据为国家层面的政府决策提供信息,对于指导各国和地区行动者当前的应对工作至关重要。
本研究于2021年2月至5月开展,旨在描述最佳可得证据(BAE)的特征,并评估其在21个拉丁美洲国家用于为与新冠疫情相关的药物干预(PI)和非药物干预(NPI)决策提供信息的程度,包括治疗药物(皮质类固醇、羟氯喹/氯喹和伊维菌素)的使用、社区环境中口罩的使用以及作为国际旅行要求的诊断检测的使用。
采用三阶段方法:(1)使用综合综述描述每种干预措施的BAE;(2)通过文件审查确定每种干预措施的政府层面决策;(3)使用一种新颖的适应性框架分析评估证据在决策中的使用情况。
BAE的特征是17项正在进行和已完成的系统评价不断演变,对于非药物干预措施尤其不确定。107份国家层面文件显示,不同干预类型的决策结果在内容和时间上存在差异,大多数决策是在证据不确定时做出的,只有5份文件包含BAE。在药物干预措施中,循证决策过程的八个关键指标中有七个比口罩使用或旅行前检测的非药物干预措施更频繁地被识别出来。总体而言,药物干预措施中证据使用的报告频率高于口罩使用或旅行检测的非药物干预措施(分别为92%、28%和29%)。
拉丁美洲地区在决策中报告证据使用的程度存在局限性。将这一过程制度化并以现有和新兴方法为基础,可以促进在紧急情况下的快速反应。
这项工作没有获得资金支持。