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

Author:

Stratil Jan M.12ORCID,Paudel Deepak3ORCID,Setty Karen E.4ORCID,Menezes de Rezende Carlos E.56ORCID,Monroe Aline A.6ORCID,Osuret Jimmy7ORCID,Scheel Inger B.8ORCID,Wildner Manfred92ORCID,Rehfuess Eva A.12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology – IBE, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.

2. Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany.

3. Save the Children, Kathmandu, Nepal.

4. The Water Institute, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

5. National Supplementary Health Agency, Ministry of Health, Brasília, Brazil.

6. Department of MaternalInfant Nursing and Public Health, College of Nursing, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.

7. Department of Disease Control and Environmental Health, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.

8. Department of Global Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

9. Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Munich, Germany.

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.

Publisher

Maad Rayan Publishing Company

Subject

Health Policy,Health Information Management,Leadership and Management,Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Health(social science)

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