Systematic evidence maps as a novel tool to support evidence-based decision-making in chemicals policy and risk management

被引:73
|
作者
Wolffe, Taylor A. M. [1 ,2 ]
Whaley, Paul [1 ,4 ]
Halsall, Crispin [1 ]
Rooney, Andrew A. [3 ]
Walker, Vickie R. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Lancaster, Lancaster Environm Ctr, Lancaster, England
[2] Univ Lancaster, Lancaster Environm Ctr, Yordas Grp, Lancaster, England
[3] NIEHS, Div Natl Toxicol Program, NIH, POB 12233, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[4] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Evidence Based Toxicol Collaborat, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
关键词
Systematic review; Evidence mapping; REVIEWS; HEALTH; QUALITY; EXPOSURE; SCIENCE; REACH;
D O I
10.1016/j.envint.2019.05.065
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Background: While systematic review (SR) methods are gaining traction as a method for providing a reliable summary of existing evidence for health risks posed by exposure to chemical substances, it is becoming clear that their value is restricted to a specific range of risk management scenarios - in particular, those which can be addressed with tightly focused questions and can accommodate the time and resource requirements of a systematic evidence synthesis. Methods: The concept of a systematic evidence map (SEM) is defined and contrasted to the function and limitations of systematic review (SR) in the context of risk management decision-making. The potential for SEMs to facilitate evidence-based decision-making are explored using a hypothetical example in risk management priority-setting. The potential role of SEMs in reference to broader risk management workflows is characterised. Results: SEMs are databases of systematically gathered research which characterise broad features of the evidence base. Although not intended to substitute for the evidence synthesis element of systematic reviews, SEMs provide a comprehensive, queryable summary of a large body of policy relevant research. They provide an evidence-based approach to characterising the extent of available evidence and support forward looking predictions or trendspotting in the chemical risk sciences. In particular, SEMs facilitate the identification of related bodies of decision critical chemical risk information which could be further analysed using SR methods, and highlight gaps in the evidence which could be addressed with additional primary studies to reduce uncertainties in decision-making. Conclusions: SEMs have strong and growing potential as a high value tool in resource efficient use of existing research in chemical risk management. They can be used as a critical precursor to efficient deployment of high quality SR methods for characterising chemical health risks. Furthermore, SEMs have potential, at a large scale, to support the sort of evidence summarisation and surveillance methods which would greatly increase the resource efficiency, transparency and effectiveness of regulatory initiatives such as EU REACH and US TSCA.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Rehabilitation Evidence-Based Decision-Making: The READ Model
    Novak, Iona
    te Velde, Anna
    Hines, Ashleigh
    Stanton, Emma
    Mc Namara, Maria
    Paton, Madison C. B.
    Finch-Edmondson, Megan
    Morgan, Catherine
    FRONTIERS IN REHABILITATION SCIENCES, 2021, 2
  • [2] A practical conservation tool to combine diverse types of evidence for transparent evidence-based decision-making
    Christie, Alec P.
    Downey, Harriet
    Frick, Winifred F.
    Grainger, Matthew
    O'Brien, David
    Tinsley-Marshall, Paul
    White, Thomas B.
    Winter, Michael
    Sutherland, William J.
    CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE, 2022, 4 (01)
  • [3] Evidence-based practice: how to perform and use systematic reviews for clinical decision-making
    Kranke, Peter
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2010, 27 (09) : 763 - 772
  • [4] Risk and Strategic Decision-Making in Developing Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines
    Wilczynski, Susan M.
    EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN, 2012, 35 (02) : 291 - 311
  • [5] EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY MAKING a critique
    Greenhalgh, Trisha
    Russell, Jill
    PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 2009, 52 (02) : 304 - 318
  • [6] Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making
    Cooke, Steven J.
    Cook, Carly N.
    Nguyen, Vivian M.
    Walsh, Jessica C.
    Young, Nathan
    Cvitanovic, Christopher
    Grainger, Matthew J.
    Randall, Nicola P.
    Muir, Matt
    Kadykalo, Andrew N.
    Monk, Kathryn A.
    Pullin, Andrew S.
    ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE, 2023, 12 (01)
  • [7] Evidence-based scientific thinking and decision-making in everyday life
    Dawson, Caitlin
    Julku, Hanna
    Pihlajamaeki, Milla
    Kaakinen, Johanna K.
    Schooler, Jonathan W.
    Simola, Jaana
    COGNITIVE RESEARCH-PRINCIPLES AND IMPLICATIONS, 2024, 9 (01):
  • [8] Eco Evidence: using the scientific literature to inform evidence-based decision making in environmental management
    Webb, J. A.
    Wealands, S. R.
    Lea, P.
    Nichols, S. J.
    de Little, S. C.
    Stewardson, M. J.
    Norris, R. H.
    19TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON MODELLING AND SIMULATION (MODSIM2011), 2011, : 2472 - 2478
  • [9] Evidence-based policy-making
    Moore, R. Andrew
    CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2006, 44 (06) : 678 - 682
  • [10] Supporting decision-making processes for evidence-based mental health promotion
    Jane-Llopis, Eva
    Katschnig, Heinz
    McDaid, David
    Wahlbeck, Kristian
    HEALTH PROMOTION INTERNATIONAL, 2011, 26 : I140 - I146