Applying the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework in the development of WHO guidelines on parenting interventions: step-by-step process and lessons learnt.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Ani Movsisyan, Sophia Backhaus, Alexander Butchart, Frances Gardner, Brigitte Strahwald, Eva Rehfuess
{"title":"Applying the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework in the development of WHO guidelines on parenting interventions: step-by-step process and lessons learnt.","authors":"Ani Movsisyan, Sophia Backhaus, Alexander Butchart, Frances Gardner, Brigitte Strahwald, Eva Rehfuess","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01165-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Development of guidelines for public health, health system, and health policy interventions demands complex systems thinking to understand direct and indirect effects of interventions within dynamic systems. The WHO-INTEGRATE framework, an evidence-to-decision framework rooted in the norms and values of the World Health Organization (WHO), provides a structured method to assess complexities in guidelines systematically, such as the balance of an intervention's health benefits and harms and their human rights and socio-cultural acceptability. This paper provides a worked example of the application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework in developing the WHO guidelines on parenting interventions to prevent child maltreatment, and shares reflective insights regarding the value added, challenges encountered, and lessons learnt.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The methodological approach comprised describing the intended step-by-step application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework and gaining reflective insights from introspective sessions within the core team guiding the development of the WHO guidelines on parenting interventions and a methodological workshop.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The WHO-INTEGRATE framework was used throughout the guideline development process. It facilitated reflective deliberation across a broad range of decision criteria and system-level aspects in the following steps: (1) scoping the guideline and defining stakeholder engagement, (2) prioritising WHO-INTEGRATE sub-criteria and guideline outcomes, (3) using research evidence to inform WHO-INTEGRATE criteria, and (4) developing and presenting recommendations informed by WHO-INTEGRATE criteria. Despite the value added, challenges, such as substantial time investment required, broad scope of prioritised sub-criteria, integration across diverse criteria, and sources of evidence and translation of insights into concise formats, were encountered.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework was crucial in the integration of effectiveness evidence with insights into implementation and broader implications of parenting interventions, extending beyond health benefits and harms considerations and fostering a whole-of-society-perspective. The evidence reviews for prioritised WHO-INTEGRATE sub-criteria were instrumental in guiding guideline development group discussions, informing recommendations and clarifying uncertainties. This experience offers important lessons for future guideline panels and guideline methodologists using the WHO-INTEGRATE framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"79"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11227174/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01165-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Development of guidelines for public health, health system, and health policy interventions demands complex systems thinking to understand direct and indirect effects of interventions within dynamic systems. The WHO-INTEGRATE framework, an evidence-to-decision framework rooted in the norms and values of the World Health Organization (WHO), provides a structured method to assess complexities in guidelines systematically, such as the balance of an intervention's health benefits and harms and their human rights and socio-cultural acceptability. This paper provides a worked example of the application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework in developing the WHO guidelines on parenting interventions to prevent child maltreatment, and shares reflective insights regarding the value added, challenges encountered, and lessons learnt.

Methods: The methodological approach comprised describing the intended step-by-step application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework and gaining reflective insights from introspective sessions within the core team guiding the development of the WHO guidelines on parenting interventions and a methodological workshop.

Results: The WHO-INTEGRATE framework was used throughout the guideline development process. It facilitated reflective deliberation across a broad range of decision criteria and system-level aspects in the following steps: (1) scoping the guideline and defining stakeholder engagement, (2) prioritising WHO-INTEGRATE sub-criteria and guideline outcomes, (3) using research evidence to inform WHO-INTEGRATE criteria, and (4) developing and presenting recommendations informed by WHO-INTEGRATE criteria. Despite the value added, challenges, such as substantial time investment required, broad scope of prioritised sub-criteria, integration across diverse criteria, and sources of evidence and translation of insights into concise formats, were encountered.

Conclusions: Application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework was crucial in the integration of effectiveness evidence with insights into implementation and broader implications of parenting interventions, extending beyond health benefits and harms considerations and fostering a whole-of-society-perspective. The evidence reviews for prioritised WHO-INTEGRATE sub-criteria were instrumental in guiding guideline development group discussions, informing recommendations and clarifying uncertainties. This experience offers important lessons for future guideline panels and guideline methodologists using the WHO-INTEGRATE framework.

在制定世卫组织育儿干预指南时应用世卫组织综合证据决策框架:逐步过程和经验教训。
背景:制定公共卫生、卫生系统和卫生政策干预指南需要复杂的系统思维,以了解干预措施在动态系统中的直接和间接影响。WHO-INTEGRATE框架是一个根植于世界卫生组织(WHO)规范和价值观的 "从证据到决策 "的框架,它提供了一种结构化的方法来系统地评估指导方针的复杂性,如干预措施的健康效益和危害的平衡及其人权和社会文化的可接受性。本文举例说明了在制定世卫组织预防虐待儿童的亲职干预指南时应用世卫组织综合框架的情况,并分享了有关附加值、遇到的挑战和汲取的经验教训的反思性见解:方法包括:描述世界卫生组织-国际综合评估框架的预期逐步应用,以及从指导制定世界卫生组织育儿干预指南的核心团队的反思会议和方法研讨会中获得反思性见解:结果:在整个指南制定过程中使用了世界卫生组织-国际综合框架。它促进了在以下步骤中对广泛的决策标准和系统层面进行反思性审议:(1) 确定指南的范围和利益相关者的参与,(2) 确定 WHO-INTEGRATE 次级标准和指南成果的优先次序,(3) 利用研究证据为 WHO-INTEGRATE 标准提供信息,(4) 根据 WHO-INTEGRATE 标准制定和提出建议。尽管取得了增值效果,但也遇到了一些挑战,如需要投入大量时间、优先次级标准的范围广泛、不同标准之间的整合、证据来源以及将见解转化为简明格式等:结论:应用世界卫生组织综合评估框架对于将有效性证据与对育儿干预措施的实施和更广泛影响的见解相结合至关重要,它超越了对健康益处和危害的考虑,促进了全社会视角的形成。对优先考虑的 WHO-INTEGRATE 次级标准进行的证据审查有助于指导指南制定小组的讨论,为建议提供信息并澄清不确定性。这一经验为今后使用 WHO-INTEGRATE 框架的指南小组和指南方法论专家提供了重要的借鉴。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信