Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36344986›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2022

Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour.

Melissa Murano, Doris Chou, Maria Laura Costa, Tari Turner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2025
    Article
  5. 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 · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Melissa MuranoCochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. melissa.murano@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6354-2729
Doris ChouDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Maria Laura CostaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Tari TurnerCochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2019, WHO prioritized updating recommendations relating to three labour induction topics: labour induction at or beyond term, mechanical methods for labour induction, and outpatient labour induction. As part of this process, we aimed to review the evidence addressing factors beyond clinical effectiveness (values, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, and economic and feasibility considerations) to inform WHO Guideline Development Group decision-making using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework, and to reflect on how methods for identifying, synthesizing and integrating this evidence could be improved.

methodsWe adapted the framework to consider the key criteria and sub-criteria relevant to our intervention. We searched for qualitative and other evidence across a variety of sources and mapped the eligible evidence to country income setting and perspective. Eligibility assessment and quality appraisal of qualitative evidence syntheses was undertaken using a two-step process informed by the ENTREQ statement. We adopted an iterative approach to interpret the evidence and provided both summary and detailed findings to the decision-makers. We also undertook a review to reflect on opportunities to improve the process of applying the framework and identifying the evidence.

resultsUsing the WHO-INTEGRATE framework allowed us to explore health rights and equity in a systematic and transparent way. We identified a lack of qualitative and other evidence from low- and middle-income settings and in populations that are most impacted by structural inequities or traditionally excluded from research. Our process review highlighted opportunities for future improvement, including adopting more systematic evidence mapping methods and working with social science researchers to strengthen theoretical understanding, methods and interpretation of the evidence.

conclusionsUsing the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to inform decision-making in a global guideline for induction of labour, we identified both challenges and opportunities relating to the lack of evidence in populations and settings of need and interest; the theoretical approach informing the development and application of WHO-INTEGRATE; and interpretation of the evidence. We hope these insights will be useful for primary researchers as well as the evidence synthesis and health decision-making communities, and ultimately contribute to a reduction in health inequities.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineHealth Services AccessibilityFemaleHuman RightsHumansLabor, InducedPregnancyWorld Health OrganizationDecision-makingEvidence-to-decision frameworkGuideline developmentGuidelinesHealth equityInduction of labourWHOWHO-INTEGRATEWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID36344986
PMCPMC9641799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.