Skip to main content

Table 1 Systematic reviews of evidence-to-decision frameworks: review characteristics and key findings. Decision criteria are the main criteria that the review authors identified across the frameworks which were included in their review

From: Evidence-to-decision frameworks: a review and analysis to inform decision-making for environmental health interventions

  Citation Focus Years searched; databases Findings Decision criteria Comments
1 Baltussen et al. 2019 [10] Systematic review of MCDA and related terms; focused on HTA: included only studies that included economic analyses 1990 to September 2018; Medline only n = 36 studies; categorized these as qualitative (n = 1 study), quantitative (n = 35), and MCDA with decision rules (n = 0); provided list of included studies but no other details Criteria for MCDA:
1. Effectiveness
2. Severity of disease
3. Disease of the poor
4. Cost-effectiveness
Search strategy focused only on MCDA and studies that included economic analyses; no data provided on the 36 individual studies
2 Burchett et al. 2012 [18] Systematic review of the literature on national decision-making about adoption of new vaccines into national immunization programs Through March 2010; Medline and multiple other databases; multiple languages n = 21 unique frameworks Nine broad categories of criteria:
1. Importance of the health problem (eg disease burden)
2. Effectiveness and safety of the vaccine
3. Programmatic considerations
4. Acceptability
5. Accessibility, equity and ethics
6. Financial/economic issues
7. Impact of vaccination
8. Consideration of alternative interventions
9. Decision-making process
Provides list of domains and sub-domains (Table 2); for vaccine context
3 Morgan et al. 2018 [8] Systematic review of EtD frameworks focusing on decision-making about whether or not to pay for a new healthcare intervention (e.g., test, treatment, or procedure) 2013–2015; multiple databases, English only n = 25 frameworks, each with a set of decision criteria Variable across the 25 frameworks.
Developed a new framework, built on GRADE EtD, including:
1. Burden of disease
2. Benefits and harms
3. Values and preferences
4. Resource use
5. Equity
6. Acceptability
7. Feasibility
Modifications included adding limitations of alternative technologies considerations in use (expanding benefits and harms) and broadening acceptability and feasibility constructs to include political and health system factors.
Started witih GRADE for clinical interventions, modified it for coverage/payer decision-making; did not examine the EtD criteria for all 25 identified frameworks.
4 Mustafa et al. 2017 [7] Systematic review to identify tools for assesssing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations related to diagnostic strategies and tests in health care 1996 to June 2012; Medine, Embase Identifed 29 tools and 14 modifications Over all tools examined, domains to assess strength of recommendations:
1. Quality of evidence
2. Patients and populations beliefs
3. Cost and resources
4. Balance of benefits and harms/burden
Focus on diagnostic tests only; Table 3 includes categories for EtD criteria (with various sub-domains or synonyms)
5 Wickremasinghe 2016 [19] Systematic review of processes and tools for local decision-making in LMIC using information and evidence from health systems data Search dates NR; published 2016; 14 databases searched n = 10 studies describing the approach of tools for decision--making; includes case studies and 1 realist evaluation. Not explicitly summarized. Frameworks are reported to include priorization, and estimates of budget and impact from local data. This study focuses on decision-making in a specific context, using local data. Includes rather narrowly focused decision criteria
  1. Abbreviations: EtD evidence-to-decision; GRADE Grading of Recommendations, Development and Evaluation; HTA, health technology assessment; MCDA multi-criteria decision analysis; n number of studies; NR not reported