Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40012089›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2025

Development of the Navigation Guide Evidence-to-Decision Framework for Environmental Health: Version 1.0.

Nicholas Chartres, Max T Aung, Susan L Norris, Courtney Cooper, Lisa A Bero, Roger Chou, Devon C Payne-Sturges, Wendy E Wagner, Jessica W Reyes, Lisa M Askie and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

20 authors.

Nicholas ChartresProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9659-6739
Max T AungDepartment of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5541-5447
Susan L NorrisDepartment of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239, United States.
Courtney CooperProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3530-9863
Lisa A BeroCenter for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, School of Medicine and Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado 80045, United States.
Roger ChouDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239, United States.
Devon C Payne-SturgesDepartment of Global, Environmental, and Occupational Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, Maryland 20742, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7343-2814
Wendy E WagnerThe University of Texas at Austin School of Law, Austin, Texas 78705, United States.
Jessica W ReyesDepartment of Economics, Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts 01002, United States.
Lisa M AskieNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8934-5544
Deysi Flores VigoMake the Road New York, Brooklyn, New York 11237, United States.
Jill E JohnstonDepartment of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4530-0555
Juleen LamDepartment of Public Health, California State University, East Bay, California 94542, United States.
Keeve E NachmanDepartment of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, United States.
Eva RehfuessInstitute for Medical information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, LMU; Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich 3608, Germany.
Rachel RothschildUniversity of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States.
Patrice SuttonProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143, United States.
Lauren Zeise
Tracey J WoodruffProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3622-1297

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision MakingEnvironmental HealthEnvironmental ExposureHumansEnvironmental JusticeEssentialityEvidence to Decision FrameworkHealth EquityRecommendationsRisk AssessmentRisk ManagementRule Making

Identifiers

PMID40012089
PMCPMC11912317

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.