Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0085-4
Title: Evidence for Health III: Making evidence-informed decisions that integrate values and context
Authors: Andermann, A
Pang, T 
Newton, J.N
Davis, A
Panisset, U
Keywords: consensus development
controlled study
decision making
health care policy
health equity
human
human experiment
public health
cooperation
decision making
evidence based medicine
health care planning
health disparity
information dissemination
methodology
organization and management
translational research
Cooperative Behavior
Decision Making
Evidence-Based Medicine
Health Priorities
Health Status Disparities
Humans
Information Dissemination
Research Design
Translational Medical Research
Issue Date: 2016
Citation: Andermann, A, Pang, T, Newton, J.N, Davis, A, Panisset, U (2016). Evidence for Health III: Making evidence-informed decisions that integrate values and context. Health Research Policy and Systems 14 (1) : 16. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0085-4
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Abstract: Making evidence-informed decisions with the aim of improving the health of individuals or populations can be facilitated by using a systematic approach. While a number of algorithms already exist, and while there is no single 'right' way of summarizing or ordering the various elements that should be involved in making such health-related decisions, an algorithm is presented here that lays out many of the key issues that should be considered, and which adds a special emphasis on balancing the values of individual patients and entire populations, as well as the importance of incorporating contextual considerations. Indeed many different types of evidence and value judgements are needed during the decision-making process to answer a wide range of questions, including (1) What is the priority health problem? (2) What causes this health problem? (3) What are the different strategies or interventions that can be used to address this health problem? (4) Which of these options, as compared to the status quo, has an added benefit that outweighs the harms? (5) Which options would be acceptable to the individuals or populations involved? (6) What are the costs and opportunity costs? (7) Would these options be feasible and sustainable in this specific context? (8) What are the ethical, legal and social implications of choosing one option over another? (9) What do different stakeholders stand to gain or lose from each option? and (10) Taking into account the multiple perspectives and considerations involved, which option is most likely to improve health while minimizing harms? This third and final article in the 'Evidence for Health' series will go through each of the steps in the algorithm in greater detail to promote more evidence-informed decisions that aim to improve health and reduce inequities. © 2016 Andermann et al.
Source Title: Health Research Policy and Systems
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/181382
ISSN: 14784505
DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0085-4
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications
Elements

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1186_s12961-016-0085-4.pdf610.96 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

9
checked on Sep 22, 2022

Page view(s)

154
checked on Sep 22, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons