Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2008 Dec 22:8:270.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-270.

Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications

Mireille M Goetghebeur  1 , Monika Wagner, Hanane Khoury, Randy J Levitt, Lonny J Erickson, Donna Rindress
Affiliations
Review

Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications

Mireille M Goetghebeur et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Healthcare decisionmaking is a complex process relying on disparate types of evidence and value judgments. Our objectives for this study were to develop a practical framework to facilitate decisionmaking in terms of supporting the deliberative process, providing access to evidence, and enhancing the communication of decisions.

Methods: Extensive analyses of the literature and of documented decisionmaking processes around the globe were performed to explore what steps are currently used to make decisions with respect to context (from evidence generation to communication of decision) and thought process (conceptual components of decisions). Needs and methodologies available to support decisionmaking were identified to lay the groundwork for the EVIDEM framework.

Results: A framework was developed consisting of seven modules that can evolve over the life cycle of a healthcare intervention. Components of decision that could be quantified, i.e., intrinsic value of a healthcare intervention and quality of evidence available, were organized into matrices. A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) Value Matrix (VM) was developed to include the 15 quantifiable components that are currently considered in decisionmaking. A methodology to synthesize the evidence needed for each component of the VM was developed including electronic access to full text source documents. A Quality Matrix was designed to quantify three criteria of quality for the 12 types of evidence usually required by decisionmakers. An integrated system was developed to optimize data analysis, synthesis and validation by experts, compatible with a collaborative structure.

Conclusion: The EVIDEM framework promotes transparent and efficient healthcare decisionmaking through systematic assessment and dissemination of the evidence and values on which decisions are based. It provides a collaborative framework that could connect all stakeholders and serve the healthcare community at local, national and international levels by allowing sharing of data, resources and values. Validation and further development is needed to explore the full potential of this approach.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Conceptual framework for healthcare decisionmaking in a given setting.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Value Matrix – definitions of components and scoring scales.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Value Matrix – assessment of the intrinsic value of a healthcare intervention.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Value Matrix – assessing Improvement of efficacy/effectiveness (component I3).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Value Matrix comparative scale.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Quality Matrix – assessment of quality of evidence for a healthcare intervention.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Quality Matrix – assessing quality of economic evaluations.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Potential applications of the EVIDEM framework.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Jewell CJ, Bero LA. "Developing good taste in evidence": facilitators of and hindrances to evidence-informed health policymaking in state government. The Milbank Quarterly. 2008;86:177–208. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2008.00519.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Anatomy of a decision. JAMA. 1990;263:441–443. doi: 10.1001/jama.263.3.441. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tunis SR. Reflections on science, judgment, and value in evidence-based decision making: a conversation with David Eddy. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26:w500–w515. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.4.w500. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Menon D, Stafinski T, Stuart G. Access to drugs for cancer: Does where you live matter? Can J Public Health. 2005;96:454–458. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Morgan SG, McMahon M, Mitton C, Roughead E, Kirk R, Kanavos P, et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United kingdom. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:337–347. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.337. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources