Advancing the WHO-INTEGRATE Framework as a Tool for Evidence-Informed, Deliberative Decision-Making Processes: Exploring the Views of Developers and Users of WHO Guidelines
- PMID: 33131223
- PMCID: PMC9309924
- DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.193
Advancing the WHO-INTEGRATE Framework as a Tool for Evidence-Informed, Deliberative Decision-Making Processes: Exploring the Views of Developers and Users of WHO Guidelines
Abstract
Background: Decision-making on matters of public health and health policy is a deeply value-laden process. The World Health Organization (WHO)-INTEGRATE framework was proposed as a new evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework to support guideline development from a complexity perspective, notably in relation to public health and health system interventions, and with a foundation in WHO norms and values. This study was conducted as part of the development of the framework to assess its comprehensiveness and usefulness for public health and health policy decision-making.
Methods: We conducted a qualitative study comprising nine key informant interviews (KIIs) with experts involved in WHO guideline development and four focus group discussions (FGDs) with a total of forty health decision-makers from Brazil, Germany, Nepal and Uganda. Transcripts were analyzed using MAXQDA12 and qualitative content analysis.
Results: Most key informants and participants in the FGDs appreciated the framework for its relevance to real-world decision-making on four widely differing health topics. They praised its broad perspective and comprehensiveness with respect to new or expanded criteria, notably regarding societal implications, equity considerations, and acceptability. Some guideline developers questioned the value of the framework beyond current practice and were concerned with the complexity of applying such a broad range of criteria in guideline development processes. Participants made concrete suggestions for improving the wording and definitions of criteria as well as their grouping, for covering missing aspects, and for addressing overlap between criteria.
Conclusion: The framework was well-received by health decision-makers as well as the developers of WHO guidelines and appears to capture all relevant considerations discussed in four distinct real-world decision processes that took place on four different continents. Guidance is needed on how to apply the framework in guideline processes that are both transparent and participatory. A set of suggestions for improvement provides a valuable starting point for advancing the framework towards version 2.0.
Keywords: Decision-Making; Framework; Guideline Development; Priority Setting; Resource Allocation; World Health Organization.
© 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Similar articles
-
WICID framework version 1.0: criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19.BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Nov;5(11):e003699. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003699. BMJ Glob Health. 2020. PMID: 33234529 Free PMC article.
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
Applying the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework in the development of WHO guidelines on parenting interventions: step-by-step process and lessons learnt.Health Res Policy Syst. 2024 Jul 5;22(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01165-z. Health Res Policy Syst. 2024. PMID: 38970125 Free PMC article.
-
Development of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework: an overview of systematic reviews of decision criteria for health decision-making.Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020 Feb 11;18:8. doi: 10.1186/s12962-020-0203-6. eCollection 2020. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020. PMID: 32071560 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. doi: 10.3310/hta14250. Health Technol Assess. 2010. PMID: 20501062 Review.
Cited by
-
Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour.Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 Nov 7;20(1):125. doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00901-7. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022. PMID: 36344986 Free PMC article.
-
Contradictions and convergences in recommendations on physical activity in pregnancy in different countries after the publication of the WHO guidelines in 2020-a scoping review.Front Public Health. 2025 Apr 28;13:1540355. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1540355. eCollection 2025. Front Public Health. 2025. PMID: 40356812 Free PMC article.
-
Frameworks to support evidence-informed decision-making in public health and infectious disease prevention and control: a scoping review.Euro Surveill. 2025 May;30(19):2400185. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2025.30.19.2400185. Euro Surveill. 2025. PMID: 40376818 Free PMC article.
-
WICID framework version 1.0: criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19.BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Nov;5(11):e003699. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003699. BMJ Glob Health. 2020. PMID: 33234529 Free PMC article.
-
How Can We Make Information on Equity in Clinical Guidelines More Usable for Clinicians? A Case Study Methodology of General Practitioners.J Eval Clin Pract. 2025 Feb;31(1):e14320. doi: 10.1111/jep.14320. J Eval Clin Pract. 2025. PMID: 39877984 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Sanderson I. Intelligent policy making for a complex world: pragmatism, evidence and learning. Polit Stud. 2009;57(4):699–719. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00791.x. - DOI
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources