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
. 2025 May;30(19):2400184.
doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2025.30.19.2400184.

Users' experience of frameworks to support evidence-informed decision-making in public health: a scoping review

Javier Bracchiglione  1   2   3   4 , Yang Song  5   4 , Jose F Meneses-Echávez  6   7 , Helena de Carvalho Gomes  8 , Barbara Albiger  8 , Ivan Solà  3   4   1 , David Rigau  4   1 , Pablo Alonso-Coello  3   4   1
Affiliations

Users' experience of frameworks to support evidence-informed decision-making in public health: a scoping review

Javier Bracchiglione et al. Euro Surveill. 2025 May.

Abstract

BackgroundEvidence-informed decision-making in public health (PH) is a complex process requiring the consideration of multiple perspectives and contextual factors. Evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks are structured approaches aiming to improve decision-making by considering critical criteria, but users' experience has not been systematically synthesised.AimWe aim to summarise users' experiences of EtD frameworks used for PH.MethodsAs part of a broader scoping review, we identified 15 EtD frameworks for PH decision-making. We searched MEDLINE and Health Systems Evidence, conducted a hand search and citation search strategy for documents reporting users' experience of EtD frameworks and surveyed key stakeholders. We conducted a descriptive thematic synthesis, identifying main barriers and facilitators, complementing with surveys to relevant stakeholders.ResultsWe identified 12 studies reporting users' experience of two EtD frameworks: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (n = 9) and World Health Organization INTEGRATe Evidence (n = 3). Both were perceived as structured approaches that enhanced the use of evidence while including contextual factors and facilitating consensus-building processes. Main barriers were lack of high-quality evidence for the effectiveness of PH interventions, limitations of the terminology or unclear boundaries between specific criteria, perceptions of missing criteria and the need for more guidance. Survey responses (n = 13) were consistent with these findings.ConclusionUsers of the two frameworks had an overall positive perception of the approaches, but several barriers remain. These experiences may change over time as the frameworks evolve. There is an evidence gap regarding users' experience for other EtD frameworks.

Keywords: decision-making; health planning guidelines; infections; prevention and control; public health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: Pablo Alonso-Coello, Javier Bracchiglione, David Rigau and Yang Song are part of the GRADE Barcelona Centre. Pablo Alonso-Coello is an author of the GRADE EtD framework. The authors declare that they have no other known competing financial interests or personal relationships that may have influenced the work conducted.

Figures

Figure
Figure
PRISMA flowchart for the selection process
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Moberg J, Oxman AD, Rosenbaum S, Schünemann HJ, Guyatt G, Flottorp S, et al. The GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):45. 10.1186/s12961-018-0320-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pohl HR, Jones DE, Holler JS, Murray HE. Public health decisions: actions and consequences. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2014;70(1):363-9. 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.07.023 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wabnitz K, Rueb M, Pfadenhauer LM, Strahwald B, Rehfuess EA. Rapid development of an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for controlling transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools during a public health emergency - A process evaluation. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1075210. 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1075210 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization (WHO). Evidence, policy, impact. WHO guide for evidence-informed decision-making. Geneva: WHO; 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240039872
    1. Ciliska D, Thomas H, Buffett C. An Introduction to Evidence-Informed Public Health and a Compendium of Critical Appraisal Tools for Public Health Practice. Hamilton: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, McMaster University; 2010. Available from: https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/01/b331668f85bc6357f262944...

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources