PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Susan L. Norris AU - Max T. Aung AU - Nicholas Chartres AU - Tracey J. Woodruff TI - Evidence-to-decision frameworks: a review and analysis to inform decision-making for environmental health interventions AID - 10.1101/2021.05.04.21256541 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.05.04.21256541 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/07/2021.05.04.21256541.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/07/2021.05.04.21256541.full AB - Background Evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks provide a structured and transparent approach for groups of experts to use when formulating recommendations or making decisions. While extensively used for clinical and public health recommendations, EtD frameworks are not in widespread use in environmental health.Objectives This review sought to identify, compare and contrast key EtD frameworks for decisions or recommendations on interventions used in clinical medicine, public health or environmental health. Our goal was to identify best practices and guidance which will be used to inform the development of an EtD framework for formulating recommendations regarding interventions to prevent or mitigate the harmful effects of exposure to substances in the environment.Methods We identified a convenience sample of EtD frameworks used by a range of organizations. We searched Medline for systematic reviews of EtD frameworks used in clinical medicine, and public or environmental health. In a qualitative manner, we summarized the decision criteria in the selected frameworks and in the reviews.Results Fourteen key organizations provided 18 EtD frameworks; most frameworks focused on clinical medicine or public health interventions; four focused on environmental health and three on economic considerations. Only one framework was based on an underlying conceptual model, and rarely was a systematic review of potential criteria performed during the frameworks development. GRADE encompasses a set of closely related frameworks for different types of decisions. Harms of interventions were examined in all frameworks and benefits in all but one. Other criteria included certainty of the body of evidence (15 frameworks), resource considerations (15), feasibility (13), equity (12), values (11), acceptability (11), and human rights (2). There was variation in how specific criteria were defined. The five identified systematic reviews reported a similar spectrum of EtD criteria.Discussion The EtD frameworks examined encompassed similar criteria, with tailoring to specific audience needs. However, there is variation in development processes, terminology, level of detail provided and presentation of the criteria. Existing frameworks are a useful starting point for development of one tailored to decision-making in environmental health.Competing Interest StatementSusan L Norris is a member of the GRADE Working Group and has published on GRADE; she is a former employee of the World Health Organization and in that role contributed to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development (2nd edition 2014) and to the WHO-INTEGRATE framework. Max T. Aung: Nothing to declare Nicholas Chartres: Nothing to declare Tracey J Woodruff: Nothing to declare Funding StatementFunding for this work was provided by the JPB Foundation (Grant 681).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data are available from the corresponding author.