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
. 2019 Jan 25;4(Suppl 1):e000844.
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000844. eCollection 2019.

The WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision framework version 1.0: integrating WHO norms and values and a complexity perspective

Eva A Rehfuess #  1 , Jan M Stratil #  1 , Inger B Scheel  2 , Anayda Portela  3 , Susan L Norris  4 , Rob Baltussen  5
Affiliations

The WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision framework version 1.0: integrating WHO norms and values and a complexity perspective

Eva A Rehfuess et al. BMJ Glob Health. .

Abstract

Introduction: Evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks intend to ensure that all criteria of relevance to a health decision are systematically considered. This paper, part of a series commissioned by the WHO, reports on the development of an EtD framework that is rooted in WHO norms and values, reflective of the changing global health landscape, and suitable for a range of interventions and complexity features. We also sought to assess the value of this framework to decision-makers at global and national levels, and to facilitate uptake through suggestions on how to prioritise criteria and methods to collect evidence.

Methods: In an iterative, principles-based approach, we developed the framework structure from WHO norms and values. Preliminary criteria were derived from key documents and supplemented with comprehensive subcriteria obtained through an overview of systematic reviews of criteria employed in health decision-making. We assessed to what extent the framework can accommodate features of complexity, and conducted key informant interviews among WHO guideline developers. Suggestions on methods were drawn from the literature and expert consultation.

Results: The new WHO-INTEGRATE (INTEGRATe Evidence) framework comprises six substantive criteria-balance of health benefits and harms, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, equality and non-discrimination, societal implications, financial and economic considerations, and feasibility and health system considerations-and the meta-criterion quality of evidence. It is intended to facilitate a structured process of reflection and discussion in a problem-specific and context-specific manner from the start of a guideline development or other health decision-making process. For each criterion, the framework offers a definition, subcriteria and example questions; it also suggests relevant primary research and evidence synthesis methods and approaches to assessing quality of evidence.

Conclusion: The framework is deliberately labelled version 1.0. We expect further modifications based on focus group discussions in four countries, example applications and input across concerned disciplines.

Keywords: health policy; health systems; public health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: SLN helps oversee the quality of WHO guidelines and reports being a member of the RIGHT Working Group and the GRADE Working Group. EAR is a member of the GRADE Working Group.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Towards a useful and operational WHO-INTEGRATE (INTEGRATe Evidence) framework.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Sources and concepts for deriving principles-based preliminary criteria rooted in WHO norms and values.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The WHO-INTEGRATE (INTEGRATe Evidence) framework version 1.0.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Smith KE, Katikireddi SV. A glossary of theories for understanding policymaking. J Epidemiol Community Health 2013;67:198–202. 10.1136/jech-2012-200990 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sanderson I. Intelligent policy making for a complex world: pragmatism, evidence and learning. Polit Stud 2009;57:699–719. 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00791.x - DOI
    1. Rajan D, Adam T, El Husseiny D, et al. . Briefing Note - Policy Dialogue: What it is and how it can contribute to evidence-informed decision-making. Geneva: WHO, 2015.
    1. Burchett HE, Mounier-Jack S, Griffiths UK, et al. . National decision-making on adopting new vaccines: a systematic review. Health Policy Plan 2012;27:ii62–ii76. 10.1093/heapol/czr049 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cromwell I, Peacock SJ, Mitton C. ’Real-world' health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15:164 10.1186/s12913-015-0814-3 - DOI - PMC - PubMed