Song Yang, Bracchiglione Javier, Meneses-Echávez Jose F, de Carvalho Gomes Helena, Albiger Barbara, Solà Ivan, Rigau David, Alonso-Coello Pablo
Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, Barcelona, Spain.
School of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China.
Euro Surveill. 2025 May;30(19). doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2025.30.19.2400185.
BackgroundEvidence-informed public health decision-making (EIDM) is a complex process that must consider multiple factors.AimWe aimed to identify and describe existing frameworks supporting evidence-informed public health decision-making and their application to infectious disease.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionAlthough 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.
背景
循证公共卫生决策(EIDM)是一个复杂的过程,必须考虑多个因素。
目的
我们旨在识别和描述支持循证公共卫生决策的现有框架及其在传染病中的应用。
方法
我们进行了一项范围综述,以描述当前循证公共卫生决策框架在公共卫生中的使用情况。我们纳入了公共卫生决策框架及其在传染病中的使用示例。我们检索了MEDLINE和Health Systems Evidence自创刊至2022年12月的文献。我们还手工检索了相关组织的网站,并对纳入框架进行了向前引文检索。两名评审员独立选择研究,一名评审员提取数据,一名进行准确性交叉核对。我们以叙述方式呈现结果。
结果
我们纳入了15个框架。7个具有通用范围,8个专注于特定主题(免疫、COVID-19或其他非传染病)。在纳入的框架中,我们总共确定了18条标准,每个框架评估的中位数为8条,最常见的是“期望效果”“资源考虑”和“可行性”。我们为四个框架确定了传染病示例:“推荐分级、评估、制定和评价”(GRADE)、世界卫生组织综合证据(WHO-INTEGRATE)、“伦理、公平、可行性和可接受性”(EEFA)以及“社区预防服务工作组”(CPSTF)证据到决策框架。
结论
尽管存在多个用于公共卫生决策的循证公共卫生决策框架,但大多数尚未广泛应用于传染病。当前的循证公共卫生决策框架在处理公共卫生决策因素方面不一致。需要进一步应用和评估,并可能对现有框架进行调整,以优化公共卫生和传染病决策。