Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41032497›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

The decision uncertainty toolkit: Risk measures and visual outputs to support decision making during public health crises.

Megan Wiggins, Marie Varughese, Ellen Rafferty, Sasha van Katwyk, Christopher McCabe, Jeff Round, Erin Kirwin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Megan WigginsInstitute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Marie VarugheseInstitute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8432-6539
Ellen RaffertyInstitute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Sasha van KatwykInstitute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Christopher McCabeCentre for Public Health and Queens Management School, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom.
Jeff RoundFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Erin KirwinInstitute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6957-7236

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring public health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, decision-makers relied on infectious disease models to evaluate policy options. Often, there is a high degree of uncertainty in the evidence base underpinning these models. When there is increased uncertainty, the risk of selecting a policy option that does not align with the intended policy objective also increases; we term this decision risk. Even when models adequately capture uncertainty, the tools used to communicate their outcomes, underlying uncertainty, and associated decision risk have often been insufficient. Our aim is to support infectious disease modellers and decision-makers in interpreting and communicating decision risk when evaluating multiple policy options.

methodsWe developed the Decision Uncertainty Toolkit by adapting methods from health economics and infectious disease modelling to improve the interpretation and communication of uncertainty. Specifically, we developed a quantitative measure of decision risk as well as a suite of risk visualizations. We refined the toolkit contents based on feedback from early dissemination through conferences and workshops.

resultsThe Decision Uncertainty Toolkit: (i) adapts and extends existing health economics methods for characterization, estimation, and communication of uncertainty to infectious disease modelling, (ii) introduces a novel risk measure that quantitatively captures the downside risk of policy alternatives, (iii) provides visual outputs for dissemination and communication of uncertainty and decision risk, and (iv) includes instructions on how to use the toolkit, standard text descriptions and examples for each component. The use of the toolkit is demonstrated through a hypothetical example.

conclusionThe Decision Uncertainty Toolkit improves existing methods for communicating infectious disease model results by providing additional information regarding uncertainty and decision risk associated with policy alternatives. This empowers decision-makers to consider and evaluate decision risk more effectively when making policy decisions. Improved understanding of decision risk can improve outcomes in future public health crises.

Indexed as

COVID-19Decision MakingPublic HealthDecision Support TechniquesHealth PolicyHumansPandemicsRisk AssessmentSARS-CoV-2Uncertainty

Identifiers

PMID41032497
PMCPMC12488006

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.