Abstract
Background Decision-making on matters of public health requires the balancing of numerous, often conflicting factors. One approach to ensure relevancy and comprehensiveness of the criteria underpinning the decision is a broad societal discourse and participatory decision-making process. However, this often was not feasible within the time constraints imposed on by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While not able or intended to replace stakeholder participation, evidence-to-decision frameworks can serve as a tool to approach relevancy and comprehensiveness of the criteria considered, even if not all voices of affected stakeholders could be heard in the process.
Objective The objective of this research project was to develop a decision-making framework adapted to the challenges decision-makers face when deliberating on national and sub-national level on non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) measures to address the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Methods We used the WHO-INTEGRATE framework Version 1.0 as a starting point. In phase I, we adapted the framework through brainstorming exercises and application to exemplary case studies. In phase II, we used the best-fit framework synthesis technique with the output of phase I serving as a priori framework. We conducted a content analysis of comprehensive strategy documents intended to guide the policy makers on the phasing out of the lockdown measures in Germany. Based on factors and criteria identified in this process, we adapted previous versions into the WHO-INTEGRATE COVID framework (WICID framework) Version 1.0.
Results Twelve comprehensive strategy documents were included in the content analysis. The revised WICID framework consists of eleven criteria, which are expanded on through 49 aspects contained within them, and the metacriterion quality of evidence. The criteria cover implications for the health of individuals and populations due to and beyond COVID-19, infringement on liberties and fundamental rights, acceptability considerations, societal, environmental, and economic implications, as well as resource and feasibility considerations.
Discussion In a third phase, the decision-making framework will be expanded through a comprehensive document analysis focusing on key-stakeholder groups across the society. The WICID framework V1.0 can be a tool to support comprehensive evidence-informed decision-making processes.
Competing Interest Statement
JMS is developer of the WHO-INTEGRATE EtD framework.
Funding Statement
No external funding source was used to fund the project.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The 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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
The included comprehensive strategy documents are - for the most part - publicly available. Those that are not, can be provided by the authors uppon request
