UCSF

Background

Evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks provide a structured and transparent approach for groups of experts to use when formulating recommendations or making decisions. While extensively used for clinical and public health recommendations, EtD frameworks are not in widespread use in environmental health. This review sought to identify, compare and contrast key EtD frameworks for decisions on interventions used in clinical medicine, public health or environmental health. This information can be used to develop an EtD framework suitable for formulating recommendations for interventions in environmental health.

Methods

We identified a convenience sample of EtD frameworks used by a range of organizations. We searched Medline for systematic reviews of frameworks. We summarized the decision criteria in the selected frameworks and reviews in a qualitative manner.

Findings

Fourteen organizations provided 18 EtD frameworks; most frameworks focused on clinical medicine or public health interventions; four focused on environmental health and three on economic considerations. Harms of interventions were examined in all frameworks and benefits in all but one. Other criteria included certainty of the body of evidence (15 frameworks), resource considerations (15), feasibility (13), equity (12), values (11), acceptability (11), and human rights (2). There was variation in how specific criteria were defined. The five identified systematic reviews reported a similar spectrum of EtD criteria.

Interpretation

The EtD frameworks examined encompassed similar criteria, with tailoring to specific audience needs. Existing frameworks are a useful starting point for development of one tailored to decision-making in environmental health.

Funder

JPB Foundation.