2021 Evidence Foundation Scholar Receives Health Equity Travel Scholarship

The Evidence Foundation is proud to announce that spring 2021 GRADE Workshop Scholar Ifeoluwa Babatunde, Pharm.D, MS, received the 2025 Encoding Health Equity Summit Travel Scholarship for Patients and Emerging Leaders, an opportunity made possible by Doris Duke Foundation and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies (CMSS). 

About her experience at the summit, Babatunde shared,

"The Encoding Equity conference was an enriching experience for me. I found it quite inspiring to hear about the diverse initiatives and research projects geared towards achieving health equity. Hearing from biomedical researchers, clinicians, public health providers, guideline developers, and medical societies truly showcased the depth of work in this field.

"My personal takeaway from the conference was on the power of collaboration. Successfully achieving the central goal of health equity integration would require all stakeholders, from providers & researchers to members of the very communities we aim to impact, actively sharing their perspectives. By engaging in consistent mutual learning, we can inspire innovation and translate our findings to actionable change across the entire medical ecosystem.

"As someone in guideline development, I particularly resonated with the work being done on pioneering a 'Population Conscious Analysis' approach to handling race and ethnicity as a variable in biomedical research. This innovation has me very optimistic about the positive impact it will have on new and existing quality appraisal tools being used in evidence synthesis.

"Lastly, I enjoyed engaging in discussions with poster presenters working on projects closely aligned with that of my team. Specifically, those focused on creating a race-conscious framework for for guideline development. These discussions reinforced the significant impact of the work we are engaged in."

Open the doors to opportunity:

Interested in contributing to the future of evidence-based medicine? Become an Evidence Foundation Scholar and attend our upcoming virtual fall workshop (October 29-31, 2025) for free. Application close August 31, 2025. See evidencefoundation.org/scholarships.html 

for application details.

Use of an Evidence-to-Decision Framework is Associated with Better Reporting, More Thorough Consideration of Recommendations

In the guideline development process, a panel should use a defined framework to consider multiple aspects of a clinical decision, including but not limited to the certainty of the underlying evidence, potential impact on resource use, or variability in the values and preferences of patients and other stakeholders. Such frameworks include the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) format as well as others such as the "decision-making triangle" and Guidance for Priority-Setting in Health care (GPS Health). 

To better understand the prevalence and use of these various frameworks within guidelines, Meneses-Echavez and colleagues systematically searched for guidelines and related guideline production manuals published between 2003 and May 2020. Items were screened and extracted by two independent authors, with a total of 68 full text documents included and analyzed.

Of these documents, most (93%) reported using a structured framework to assess the certainty of evidence, about half (53%) of which used GRADE or adapted systems based on GRADE (10%). Similarly, 88% of documents reported using a framework to rate the strength of recommendations, with about half (51%) using the GRADE approach. However,  only about two-thirds (66%) of the included documents explicitly stated the process for formulating resulting recommendations. 

Finally, the GRADE framework  was most commonly used for the evidence-to-decision, being cited in 42% of the included articles, with other reported frameworks including NICE (8%), SIGN (8%) and USPSTF (4%). Articles using the GRADE EtD framework reported considering more criteria than those using alternative approaches. The most commonly used criteria across documents included desirable effects (72%), undesirable effects (73%), and the certainty of evidence of effects (73%); the least commonly applied criteria were acceptability (28%), certainty of the evidence of required resources (25%), and equity (16%). 

The use of any EtD framework was associated with a greater likelihood of incorporating perspectives (odds ratio: 2.8; from 0.6-13.8) and subgroup considerations (odds ratio:7.2; from 0.9-57.9), as was the use of GRADE compared to other EtDs (odds ratios: 1.4 and 8.4). These differences also affected whether justifications were reported for each judgment as well as the inclusion of notes to consider for the implementation of recommendations and for monitoring and evaluating recommendations.  

The authors conclude that guidance documents stand to benefit from the more explicit reporting of how recommendations are formulated, from the initial grading of the certainty of underlying evidence to the consideration of how recommendations will affect various criteria such as resource use and equity. These changes, in the words of the authors, may "enhance transparency and credibility, enabling end users to determine how much confidence they can have in the recommendations; facilitate later adaptation to contexts other than the ones in which they were originally developed; and improve usability and communicability of the EtD frameworks." 

Meneses-Echaves JF, Bidonde J, Yepes-Nuñez JJ, et al. (2022).  Evidence to decision frameworks enabled structured and explicit development of healthcare recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 150:51-62. Manuscript available at publisher's website here.

A New Template for Standardized Wording when Reporting Evidence-to-Decision Considerations in Guidelines

One of the major tenets of GRADE is that certainty of the evidence is just one component of decision-making. Ultimately, decision-makers also need to take into account important factors such as values and preferences, feasibility, and considerations of the impact of a decision on health equity and resource utilization. These factors and others are part of the Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) framework that guides the process from the assessment of certainty of evidence to the final formulation of recommendations in a structured, transparent manner.

Often, multiple teams and individuals involved in the development of a guideline will need to work together to compete the EtD process, which can be a source of confusion. Additionally, until now, no official guidance existed for the use of standardized wording when considering and reporting each EtD framework component. Earlier this year, Piggott and colleagues aimed to address this issue with an article published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.

The project, comprising ten guideline development groups and over 250 recommendations, set out to develop a standardized framework for clear, transparent, and efficient wording when reporting Evidence-to-Decision components within a guideline. This template was then used in two guidelines in development - the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) and the Endocrine Society guidelines on hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia and hypercalcemia. During this process, the authors were able to pilot the wording, receive feedback, and refine the template. The real-life guidelines were also used to provide examples of wording recommendations.

The article includes suggested wording structure and examples for reporting the magnitude and certainty of effect estimates, for conclusions of each portion of the EtD framework, and for justification of recommendations as well as notes on implementation considerations, monitoring and evaluation, and research priorities. 

The authors note that these suggestions are preliminary and may require further refinement. Additionally, current examples of consistent and clear wording of EtDs continues to be lacking, though the dissemination of this guidance may improve future publications. While the suggestions within the article are focused on clinical decisions related to management of conditions, future efforts may expand this to guidelines for diagnostic testing, coverage, and other important areas.

Piggott, T., Baldeh, T., Dietl, B., Wiercoch, W., Nieuwlaat, R., Santesso, N., ... & Schünemann, H. (2022). Standardized wording to improve efficiency and clarity of GRADE EtD frameworks in health guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol (online ahead of print). Manuscript available at the publisher's website here.

   

Equity Harms Related to Covid-19 Policies: Slowing the Spread Without Increasing Inequity

Since COVID-19 was first declared a pandemic in March of this year, numerous policies around the world have implemented some degree of lockdown, slashing social events and gatherings, shuttering once-bustling businesses and changing the face of the global economy. While the lockdowns in place were likely necessary to reduce the infection rate and resulting morbidity and mortality associated with the coronavirus, there are potentially undesirable consequences of these policies that affect measures of equity. In a new publication, Glover and colleagues present a framework for considering these effects and weighing them against the benefits of slowing the spread.

The work builds off of a novel combination of two existing frameworks. First, the Lorenc and Oliver framework lays out five potential harms of public health interventions which require mitigation: direct health harms, psychological harms, equity harms, group and social harms, and opportunity costs. Second, the PROGRESS-Plus health equity framework provides a list of 11 general categories that can affect measures of equity: Place of residence, Race, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social Capital, sexual orientation, age, and disability. Each of the two frameworks' individual components are used as a lens to examine the other. The resulting matrix of 55 potential sources of inequity related to the COVID-19 pandemic and its resulting public health policies provides an exemplary approach to considering all aspects of any large-scale public health intervention and the impact its implementation may have on inequity.

Key to the authors' resulting framework is the concept that both the policy responses to the pandemic and the nature of the pandemic itself are potential sources of inequity. For instance, individuals in lower-income occupations are also typically considered essential workers, and are less likely to have a safety net that would allow them to choose not to work or a job that is compatible with working remotely. Thus, the existing systemic inequities are exacerbated by the fact that they are now more likely to be exposed to the virus by continuing to go to work outside the home. However, policymakers can help reduce the impact of their policies on these sources of inequity - as well as ones caused by lockdown policies more directly - by considering mitigation strategies when implementing these policies (for example, by mandating improved sanitation, personal protective equipment, and social distancing for workers in vulnerable occupations). The figure below from the publication provides an overview of the relationship between the pandemic, policy responses and their resulting inequities, and potential points of intervention.

Click to enlarge.

The framework also allows for a more nuanced consideration of context in efforts to reduce the spread of coronavirus. Policies that are highly effective and viable in higher-income countries or areas with greater population density, for instance, may not be as beneficial in low- and middle-income countries and may even result in greater inequity. As with any intervention of any scale, the potential harms must be weighed against the desirable effects, and the context of the given intervention is key. This framework allows for consideration of a wider range of impacts when attempting to reduce illness and mortality in the age of a pandemic.

Glover, R.E., van Schalkwyk, M.C.I., Akl, E.A., Kristjannson, E., Lofti, T., Petkovic, J., ... & Welch, V. (2020). A framework for identifying and mitigating the equity harms of COVID-19 policy interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 128:35-48.

Manuscript available from the publisher's website here. 

WHO Guidelines are Considering Health Equity More Frequently, but Reporting of Judgments is Often Incomplete

The GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was developed as a way to more explicitly and transparently inform the considerations of the implications of clinical recommendations, such as the potential positive or negative impacts on health equity. A new analysis of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines published between 2014 and 2019 - over half (54%) of which used the EtD framework - examines the consideration of health equities in the guidelines' resulting recommendations.

Dewidar and colleagues found that the guidelines utilizing the EtD framework were more likely to be addressing health issues in socially disadvantaged populations (42% of those developed with the EtD versus 24% of those without). What's more, the use of the EtD framework has risen over time, from 10% of guidelines published in 2016 (the year of the EtD's introduction) to 100% of those published within the first four months of 2019. Use of the term "health equity" increased to a similar degree over this period.

Just over one-third (38%) of recommendations were judged to increase or probably increase health equity, while 15% selected the judgment "Don't know/uncertain" and 8% provided no judgment. Just over one-quarter (28%) of the recommendations utilizing the EtD framework provided evidence for the judgment. When detailed judgments were provided, they were more likely to discuss the potential impacts of place of residence and socioeconomic status and less likely to explicitly consider gender, education, race, social capital, occupation, or religion.

Click to enlarge.

The authors conclude that while consideration of the potential impacts of recommendations on health equity has increased considerably in recent years, reporting of these judgments is still often incomplete. Reporting which published research evidence or additional considerations were used to make a judgment, as well as considering the various PROGRESS factors (Place, Race, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital) will likely improve the transparency of recommendations in future guidelines where health equity impacts are of concern.

Dwidr, O., Tsang, P., León-Garcia, M., Mathew, C., Antequera, A., Baldeh, T., ... & Welch, V. 2020. Over half of WHO guidelines published from 2014 to 2019 explicitly considered health equity issues: A cross-sectional suvey. J Clin Epidemiol 127:125-133.

Manuscript available from the publisher's website here.