背景:制定公共卫生指南,卫生系统,卫生政策干预需要复杂的系统思维来理解动态系统中干预的直接和间接影响。WHO-INTEGRATE框架,一个根植于世界卫生组织(世卫组织)规范和价值观的决定证据框架,提供了一种结构化的方法来系统地评估指南的复杂性,例如干预措施的健康益处和危害及其人权和社会文化可接受性的平衡。本文提供了一个应用WHO-INTEGRATE框架制定WHO育儿干预措施预防儿童虐待指南的实例,并分享关于附加值的反思见解,遇到的挑战,和吸取的教训。
方法:方法学方法包括描述WHO-INTEGRATE框架的预期逐步应用,并从指导制定WHO育儿干预指南的核心团队内部内省会议中获得反思性见解和方法研讨会。
结果:在整个指南制定过程中使用WHO-INTEGRATE框架。它在以下步骤中促进了广泛的决策标准和系统级方面的反思性审议:(1)确定指南范围并定义利益相关者的参与,(2)优先考虑WHO-INTEGRATE子标准和指南结果,(3)使用研究证据来告知WHO-INTEGRATE标准,(4)制定和提出符合WHO-INTEGRATE标准的建议。尽管增值,挑战,例如需要大量的时间投资,优先次级标准的广泛范围,跨不同标准的整合,以及证据来源和将见解翻译成简洁的格式,遇到了。
结论:应用WHO-INTEGRATE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,超越健康益处和危害考虑,培养整个社会的观点。世卫组织-INTEGRATE子标准优先次序的证据审查有助于指导指南制定小组的讨论。告知建议并澄清不确定性。这一经验为未来的指南小组和使用WHO-INTEGRATE框架的指南方法学家提供了重要的经验教训。
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.