ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2025
Frameworks to support evidence-informed decision-making in public health and infectious disease prevention and control: a scoping review.
Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 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.
- Evidence-to-Decision Frameworks: Enhancing the Quality and Rigour of Guidelines and Recommendations.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundEvidence-informed public health decision-making (EIDM) is a complex process that must consider multiple factors.AimWe aimed to identify and describe existing frameworks supporting evidence-informed public health decision-making and their application to infectious disease.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to describe current EIDM framework use in public health. We included decision-making frameworks in public health and examples of their use in infectious diseases. We searched MEDLINE and Health Systems Evidence from inception to December 2022. We also hand searched websites of relevant organisations and conducted a forward citation search of the included frameworks. Two reviewers selected studies independently, one reviewer extracted data and one cross-checked for accuracy. We presented the results narratively.ResultsWe included 15 frameworks. Seven had a generic scope and eight were focused on specific topics (immunisation, COVID-19 or other, non-infectious diseases). From the included frameworks, we identified a total of 18 criteria with each framework assessing a median of eight, the most frequent being 'desirable effects', 'resources considerations' and 'feasibility'. We identified infectious disease examples for four frameworks: 'Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation' (GRADE), WHO-INTEGRATe Evidence (WHO-INTEGRATE), 'Ethics, Equity, Feasibility, and Acceptability' (EEFA) and 'Community Preventive Services Task Force' (CPSTF) evidence-to-decision frameworks.ConclusionAlthough several EIDM frameworks exist for public health decision-making, most have not been widely applied to infectious diseases. Current EIDM frameworks inconsistently address factors for public health decision-making. Further application and evaluation, and possibly adaptation of existing frameworks, is required to optimise decision-making in public health and infectious diseases.
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.