Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38206901›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

User-experience testing of an evidence-to-decision framework for selecting essential medicines.

Thomas Piggott, Lorenzo Moja, Carlos A Cuello Garcia, Elie A Akl, Rita Banzi, Benedikt Huttner, Tamara Kredo, John N Lavis, Holger J Schünemann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Thomas PiggottDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1643-5386
Lorenzo MojaDepartment of Essential Medicines and Health Products, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Carlos A Cuello GarciaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1742-0242
Elie A AklDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Rita BanziMario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Benedikt HuttnerDepartment of Essential Medicines and Health Products, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1749-9464
Tamara KredoCochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.
John N LavisMcMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Holger J SchünemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3211-8479
Impact · CAWorld Health Organization · CHHumanitas University · ITMario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research · ITQueen's University · CASouth African Medical Research Council · ZAUniversity of Johannesburg · ZA

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Essential medicine lists (EMLs) are important medicine prioritization tools used by the World Health Organization (WHO) EML and over 130 countries. The criteria used by WHO's Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines has parallels to the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. In this study, we explored the EtD frameworks and a visual abstract as adjunctive tools to strengthen the integrate evidence and improve the transparency of decisions of EML applications. We conducted user-experience testing interviews of key EML stakeholders using Morville's honeycomb model. Interviews explored multifaceted dimensions (e.g., usability) on two EML applications for the 2021 WHO EML-long-acting insulin analogues for diabetes and immune checkpoint inhibitors for lung cancer. Using a pre-determined coding framework and thematic analysis we iteratively improved both the EtD framework and the visual abstract. We coded the transcripts of 17 interviews with 13 respondents in 103 locations of the interview texts across all dimensions of the user-experience honeycomb. Respondents felt the EtD framework and visual abstract presented complementary useful and findable adjuncts to the traditional EML application. They felt this would increase transparency and efficiency in evidence assessed by EML committees. As EtD frameworks are also used in health practice guidelines, including those by the WHO, respondents articulated that the adoption of the EtD by EML applications represents a tangible mechanism to align EMLs and guidelines, decrease duplication of work and improve coordination. Improvements were made to clarify instructions for the EtD and visual abstract, and to refine the design and content included. 'Availability' was added as an additional criterion for EML applications to highlight this criterion in alignment with WHO EML criteria. EtD frameworks and visual abstracts present additional important tools to communicate evidence and support decision-criteria in EML applications, which have global health impact. Access to essential medicines is important for achieving universal health coverage, and the development of essential medicine lists should be as evidence-based and trustworthy as possible.

Identifiers

PMID38206901
PMCPMC10783770
OpenAlexW4390753957

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.