Strong Public Health Recommendations from Weak Evidence? Lessons Learned in Developing Guidance on the Public Health Management of Meningococcal Disease

Author:

Hanquet Germaine12,Stefanoff Pawel34,Hellenbrand Wiebke5,Heuberger Sigrid6,Lopalco Pierluigi7,Stuart James M.89

Affiliation:

1. Consultant Epidemiologist (Independent), 1081 Brussels, Belgium

2. Department of Vaccinology, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium

3. Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 0403 Oslo, Norway

4. National Institute of Public Health-National Institute of Hygiene, 400-791 Warsaw, Poland

5. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Immunization Unit, Robert Koch Institute, 13086 Berlin, Germany

6. Meningococcal Reference Laboratory, Austrian Agency for Food and Health Safety, 8010 Graz, Austria

7. Vaccine-Preventable Diseases Programme, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, 171 83 Stockholm, Sweden

8. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK

9. Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK

Abstract

The evidence underpinning public health policy is often of low quality, leading to inconsistencies in recommended interventions. One example is the divergence in national policies across Europe for managing contacts of invasive meningococcal disease. Aiming to develop consistent guidance at the European level, a group of experts reviewed the literature and formulated recommendations. The group defined eight priority research questions, searched the literature, and formulated recommendations using GRADE methodology. Five of the research questions are discussed in this paper. After taking into account quality of evidence, benefit, harm, value, preference, burden on patient of the intervention, and resource implications, we made four strong recommendations and five weak recommendations for intervention. Strong recommendations related not only to one question with very low quality of evidence as well as to two questions with moderate to high quality of evidence. The weak recommendations related to two questions with low and very low quality of evidence but also to one question with moderate quality of evidence. GRADE methodology ensures a transparent process and explicit recognition of additional factors that should be considered when making recommendations for policy. This approach can be usefully applied to many areas of public health policy where evidence quality is often low.

Funder

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

Publisher

Hindawi Limited

Subject

General Immunology and Microbiology,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,General Medicine

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Occupational Health Update;Infectious Disease Clinics of North America;2021-09

2. What is the role of consensus statements in a risk society?;Journal of Risk Research;2019-07-25

3. Management of meningococcal outbreaks: are we using the same language? Comparison of the public health policies between high-income countries with low incidence of meningococcal disease;Expert Review of Vaccines;2019-04-04

4. Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines;Painless Evidence-Based Medicine;2016-12-22

5. Occupational Health Update;Infectious Disease Clinics of North America;2016-09

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3