RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 WICID framework Version 1.0: Criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.07.03.20145755
DO 10.1101/2020.07.03.20145755
A1 Jan M Stratil
A1 Maike Voss
A1 Laura Arnold
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/13/2020.07.03.20145755.abstract
AB Introduction Decision-making on matters of public health and health policy requires the balancing of numerous, often conflicting factors. However, a broad societal discourse and a participatory decision-making process on the criteria underpinning the decision was often not feasible within the time constraints imposed on by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While evidence-to-decision frameworks are not able or intended to replace stakeholder participation, they can serve as a tool to approach relevancy and comprehensiveness of the criteria considered.Objective To develop a decision-making framework adapted to the challenges of decision-making on national and sub-national level implementation of non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) measures to contain the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.Methods We employed the “best-fit” framework synthesis technique and used the WHO-INTEGRATE framework Version 1.0 as a starting point. In a first phase adapted the framework through brainstorming exercises and application to exemplary case studies (e.g. school reopening). In a second phase we conducted a content analysis of comprehensive strategy documents intended to guide policymakers on the phasing out of applied lockdown measures in Germany. Based on factors and criteria identified in this process, we adapted previous framework versions into the WICID (WHO-INTEGRATE COVID-19) framework Version 1.0.Results Twelve comprehensive strategy documents were included in the content analysis. The revised WICID framework consists of eleven criteria, supported by 48 aspects, the metacriterion quality of evidence and embraces a complexity and systems-perspective. The criteria cover implications for the health of individuals and populations due to and beyond COVID-19, infringement on liberties and fundamental human rights, acceptability and equity considerations, societal, environmental, and economic implications, as well as resource and feasibility considerations.Discussion In a third phase, the proposed framework will be expanded through a comprehensive document analysis focusing on key-stakeholder groups across the society. The WICID framework can be a tool to support comprehensive evidence-informed decision-making processes.What is already known?Ad-hoc Decision-making on matters of public health and health policy such as non-pharmaceutical interventions to contain the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, requires decision-makers to balance numerous and often conflicting criteria. Insufficient consideration of relevant factors reduces acceptance and can limit the effectiveness of the intervention.What are the new findings?Based on a content-analysis of comprehensive strategy documents, we newly developed WICID framework provides of 11+1 criteria informed by 47 aspects which are intended to support decision-makers in the balancing act of identifying and considering criteria of relevance.What do the new findings imply?The usage of the WICID evidence-to-decision framework can support decision-makers and expert committees in making more balanced decision, even if not all voices of relevant stakeholders could be included in the process due to time constraints imposed by the rapid progress of the pandemic.Competing Interest StatementJMS is authors of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework. JMS and MV were part of an expert group which developed strategy documents intended to inform the Covid-19 crisis taskforce of the German government.Funding StatementNo external funding source was used to fund the project.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:The research will be undertaken in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki in their respective current versions. As it is a document analysis, no review by an ethics committee was deemed necessary.All 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.YesThe included comprehensive strategy documents are - for the most part - publicly available. Those that are not, can be provided by the authors uppon request