ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2025
Development of the Navigation Guide Evidence-to-Decision Framework for Environmental Health: Version 1.0.
Article in Environmental science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the evidence on the role and impact of plastics in the context of health products and their packaging: A scoping review.JRSM open · 2026Article
- Invited Perspective: Why Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, and Evidence-to-Decision Frameworks Are Critical for Transparent, Consistent, Equitable, and Science-Based Decision-Making in Environmental Health.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental exposures, including widespread industrial pollution, impact human health and are amplified in more highly exposed communities. Policy and regulatory frameworks for making decisions and recommendations on interventions to mitigate or prevent exposures tend to narrowly focus on exposure and some health-related data related to risks. Typically, such frameworks do not consider other factors, including essentiality, health equity, and distribution of benefits and costs. Further, decisions and recommendations lack transparency regarding how they were developed. We developed the Navigation Guide Evidence-to-Decision Framework for Environmental Health (E2DFEH) to provide a structured and transparent framework incorporating a range of scientific information and factors for decision-making. We reviewed current evidence-to-decision frameworks and engaged in an iterative consensus-based process involving 30 experts from 25 organizations in the academic, government, and nonprofit sectors. The E2DFEH framework includes three Foundations that are structural factors considered as part of recommendation development: 1) Essentiality, 2) Human Rights, and 3) Quality of the Evidence. It also includes three core Criteria that guide the development of a specific recommendation, informed by an evaluation of relevant evidence: 1) Environmental Justice, 2) Maximizing Benefits and Reducing Harm, and 3) Sociocultural Acceptability and Feasibility. The framework's goal is to make the decision process transparent and comprehensive through explicit consideration of core factors important for decisions, leading to more equitable and health-protective interventions.
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.