Dataset Information

The GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe a framework for people making and using evidence-informed health system and public health recommendations and decisions.

Background

We developed the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions as part of the DECIDE project, in which we simultaneously developed frameworks for these and other types of healthcare decisions, including clinical recommendations, coverage decisions and decisions about diagnostic tests.

Developing the framework

Building on GRADE EtD tables, we used an iterative approach, including brainstorming, consultation of the literature and with stakeholders, and an international survey of policy-makers. We applied the framework to diverse examples, conducted workshops and user testing with health system and public health guideline developers and policy-makers, and observed and tested its use in real-life guideline panels.

Findings

All the GRADE EtD frameworks share the same basic structure, including sections for formulating the question, making an assessment and drawing conclusions. Criteria listed in the assessment section of the health system and public health framework cover the important factors for making these types of decisions; in addition to the effects and economic impact of an option, the priority of the problem, the impact of the option on equity, and its acceptability and feasibility are important considerations that can inform both whether and how to implement an option. Because health system and public health interventions are often complex, detailed implementation considerations should be made when making a decision. The certainty of the evidence is often low or very low, but decision-makers must still act. Monitoring and evaluation are therefore often important considerations for these types of decisions. We illustrate the different components of the EtD framework for health system and public health decisions by presenting their application in a framework adapted from a real-life guideline.

Discussion

This framework provides a structured and transparent approach to support policy-making informed by the best available research evidence, while making the basis for decisions accessible to those whom they will affect. The health system and public health EtD framework can also be used to facilitate dissemination of recommendations and enable decision-makers to adopt, and adapt, recommendations or decisions.

SUBMITTER: Moberg J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5975536 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions.

Moberg Jenny J Oxman Andrew D AD Rosenbaum Sarah S Schünemann Holger J HJ Guyatt Gordon G Flottorp Signe S Glenton Claire C Lewin Simon S Morelli Angela A Rada Gabriel G Alonso-Coello Pablo P

Health research policy and systems 20180529 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To describe a framework for people making and using evidence-informed health system and public health recommendations and decisions.<h4>Background</h4>We developed the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions as part of the DECIDE project, in which we simultaneously developed frameworks for these and other types of healthcare decisions, including clinical recommendations, coverage decisions and decisions about diagnostic tests.<h4 ...[more]

PMID: 29843743

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and similar Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks require its users to judge how substantial the effects of interventions are on desirable and undesirable people-important health outcomes. However, decision thresholds (DTs) that could help understand the magnitude of intervention effects and serve as reference for interpretation of findings are not yet available.The objective of this study is an approach to derive and use DTs for EtD judgments about the magnitude of health benefits and harms. We hypothesise that approximate DTs could have the ability to discriminate between the existing four categories of EtD judgments (Trivial, Small, Moderate, Large), support panels of decision-makers in their work, and promote consistency and transparency in judgments.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a methodological randomised controlled trial to collect the data that allow deriving the DTs. We will invite clinicians, epidemiologists, decision scientists, health research methodologists, experts in Health Technology Assessment (HTA), members of guideline development groups and the public to participate in the trial. Then, we will investigate the validity of our DTs by measuring the agreement between judgments that were made in the past by guideline panels and the judgments that our DTs approach would suggest if applied on the same guideline data.Ethics and disseminationThe Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board reviewed this study as a quality improvement study and determined that it requires no further consent. Survey participants will be required to read a consent statement in order to participate in this study at the beginning of the trial. This statement reads: You are being invited to participate in a research project which aims to identify indicative DTs that could assist users of the GRADE EtD frameworks in making judgments. Your input will be used in determining these indicative thresholds. By completing this survey, you provide consent that the anonymised data collected will be used for the research study and to be summarised in aggregate in publication and electronic tools.Protocol registration numberNCT05237635.

Project description:BackgroundPublic health professionals are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making to inform practice and policy decisions. Evidence-informed decision making involves the use of research evidence along with expertise, existing public health resources, knowledge about community health issues, the local context and community, and the political climate. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools has identified a seven step process for evidence-informed decision making. Tools have been developed to support public health professionals as they work through each of these steps. This paper provides an overview of tools used in three Canadian public health departments involved in a study to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making.MethodsAs part of a knowledge translation and exchange intervention, a Knowledge Broker worked with public health professionals to identify and apply tools for use with each of the steps of evidence-informed decision making. The Knowledge Broker maintained a reflective journal and interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of decision makers and public health professionals. This paper presents qualitative analysis of the perceived usefulness and usability of the tools.ResultsTools were used in the health departments to assist in: question identification and clarification; searching for the best available research evidence; assessing the research evidence for quality through critical appraisal; deciphering the 'actionable message(s)' from the research evidence; tailoring messages to the local context to ensure their relevance and suitability; deciding whether and planning how to implement research evidence in the local context; and evaluating the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Decision makers provided descriptions of how the tools were used within the health departments and made suggestions for improvement. Overall, the tools were perceived as valuable for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making.ConclusionTools are available to support the process of evidence-informed decision making among public health professionals. The usability and usefulness of these tools for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making are discussed, including recommendations for the tools' application in other public health settings beyond this study. Knowledge and awareness of these tools may assist other health professionals in their efforts to implement evidence-informed practice.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:It is unclear how guidelines panelists discuss and consider factors (criteria) that are formally and not formally included in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To describe the use of decision criteria, we explored how panelists adhered to GRADE criteria and sought to identify any emerging non-GRADE criteria when the panelists used the Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework as part of GRADE application. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:We used conventional and summative qualitative analyses to identify themes emerging from face-to-face, panel meeting discussions. Forty-eight members from 12 countries participated in the development of five guidelines for the management of venous thromboembolism by the American Society of Hematology. RESULTS:Ten themes corresponded to the GRADE approach and represented all panel discussions. Over half (53%) of the total panel discussions concerned the use of research evidence. When evidence was considered sufficient and clear, the decision-making process proved rapid. CONCLUSION:The GRADE EtD framework provides structure to guidelines panel meetings, and ensures that the panelists consider all established formal GRADE criteria as they decide on the recommendation text, strength, and direction (for or against an intervention). This is the first study assessing the use of GRADE's EtD framework during real-time guidelines development using panel discussions. Given the widespread use of GRADE, this study provides important information for practice recommendations generated when guidelines panels explicitly follow, in a transparent and systematic manner, the structured GRADE EtD framework. By recognizing the extent to which panels discuss and consider GRADE and other (non-GRADE) criteria for producing guideline recommendations, we are one step closer to understanding the decision-making process in panels that use a structured framework such as the GRADE EtD framework.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Consistent healthcare decision making requires systematic consideration of decision criteria and evidence available to inform them. This can be tackled by combining multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The objective of this study was to field-test a decision support framework (EVIDEM), explore its utility to a drug advisory committee and test its reliability over time. METHODS: Tramadol for chronic non-cancer pain was selected by the health plan as a case study relevant to their context. Based on extensive literature review, a by-criterion HTA report was developed to provide synthesized evidence for each criterion of the framework (14 criteria for the MCDA Core Model and 6 qualitative criteria for the Contextual Tool). During workshop sessions, committee members tested the framework in three steps by assigning: 1) weights to each criterion of the MCDA Core Model representing individual perspective; 2) scores for tramadol for each criterion of the MCDA Core Model using synthesized data; and 3) qualitative impacts of criteria of the Contextual Tool on the appraisal. Utility and reliability of the approach were explored through discussion, survey and test-retest. Agreement between test and retest data was analyzed by calculating intra-rater correlation coefficients (ICCs) for weights, scores and MCDA value estimates. RESULTS: The framework was found useful by the drug advisory committee in supporting systematic consideration of a broad range of criteria to promote a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Directly integrated in the framework as a "by-criterion" HTA report, synthesized evidence for each criterion facilitated its consideration, although this was sometimes limited by lack of relevant data. Test-retest analysis showed fair to good consistency of weights, scores and MCDA value estimates at the individual level (ICC ranging from 0.676 to 0.698), thus lending some support for the reliability of the approach. Overall, committee members endorsed the inclusion of most framework criteria and revealed important areas of discussion, clarification and adaptation of the framework to the needs of the committee. CONCLUSIONS: By promoting systematic consideration of all decision criteria and the underlying evidence, the framework allows a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Further testing and validation are needed to advance MCDA approaches in healthcare decisionmaking.

Project description:Various investments could help countries deliver on the universal health coverage (UHC) goals set by the global community; community health is a pillar of many national strategies towards UHC. Yet despite resource mobilization towards this end, little is known about the potential costs and value of these investments, as well as how evidence on the same would be used in related decisions. This qualitative study was conducted to understand the use of evidence in policy and financing decisions for large-scale community health programmes in low- and middle-income countries. Through key informant interviews with 43 respondents in countries with community health embedded in national UHC strategies (Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique) and at global institutions, we investigated evidence use in community health financing and policy decision-making, as well as evidentiary needs related to community health data for decision-making. We found that evidence use is limited at all levels, in part due to a perceived lack of high-quality, relevant evidence. This perception stems from two main areas: first, desire for local evidence that reflects the context, and second, much existing economic evidence does not deal with what decision-makers value when it comes to community health systems-i.e. coverage and (to a lesser extent) quality. Beyond the evidence gap, there is limited capacity to assess and use the evidence. Elected officials also face political challenges to disinvestment as well as structural obstacles to evidence use, including the outsized influence of donor priorities. Evaluation data must to speak to decision-maker interests and constraints more directly, alongside financiers of community health providing explicit guidance and support on the role of evidence use in decision-making, empowering national decision-makers. Improved data quality, increased relevance of evidence and capacity for evidence use can drive improved efficiency of financing and evidence-based policymaking.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.MethodsTo locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.ConclusionsTo more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.

Dataset Information

The GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions.

Objective

Background

Developing the framework

Findings

Discussion

Publications

The GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets