ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2022
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.
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence-to-Decision Frameworks: Enhancing the Quality and Rigour of Guidelines and Recommendations.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2026Article
- Reassessing onco-exceptionalism: equity and resource allocation in immunotherapeutic cancer treatments.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Invisible Pursuit: A Scoping Review of Global Policy for Continuity of Care of Vulnerable Infants Under 6 Months and Their Mothers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Frameworks to support evidence-informed decision-making in public health and infectious disease prevention and control: a scoping review.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025Article
- Users' experience of frameworks to support evidence-informed decision-making in public health: a scoping review.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025Article
- How Can We Make Information on Equity in Clinical Guidelines More Usable for Clinicians? A Case Study Methodology of General Practitioners.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- 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.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Learning health systems to implement chronic disease prevention programs: A novel framework and perspectives from an Australian health service.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Development of an overarching framework for anticipating and assessing adverse and other unintended consequences of public health interventions (CONSEQUENT): a best-fit framework synthesis.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- The potential impact of novel tuberculosis vaccine introduction on economic growth in low- and middle-income countries: A modeling study.PLoS medicine · 2023Article
- Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Assessing urban resilience to public health disaster using the rough analytic hierarchy process method: A regional study in China.Journal of safety science and resilience = An quan ke xue yu ren xing (Ying wen) · 2022Article
- WICID framework version 1.0: criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19.BMJ global health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision-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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsMost 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.
conclusionThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.