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
  • [31] Developing Evidence to Support Policy:Protocol for the StrAtegicPoLicy EvIdence-Based Evaluation CeNTer (SALIENT)
    Pugh, Mary Jo
    Haun, Jolie N.
    White, P. Jon
    Cochran, Gerald
    Mohanty, April F.
    McAndrew, Lisa M.
    Gordon, Adam J.
    Nelson, Richard E.
    Vanneman, Megan E.
    Naranjo, Diana E.
    Benzinger, Rachel C.
    Jones, Audrey L.
    Kean, Jacob
    Zickmund, Susan L.
    Fagerlin, Angela
    JMIR RESEARCH PROTOCOLS, 2024, 13
  • [32] The role of patient preferences in nursing decision-making in evidence-based practice: excellent nurses' communication tools
    Den Hertog, Ria
    Niessen, Theo
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2019, 75 (09) : 1987 - 1995
  • [33] Patient-centred decision-making? Biocitizens between evidence-based medicine and self-determination
    Jorgensen, Marianne Winther
    EVIDENCE & POLICY, 2015, 11 (03): : 311 - 329
  • [34] Evidence-based policy-making? The meaning of scientific knowledge in policy processes
    Saretzki, Thomas
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVIDENZ FORTBILDUNG UND QUALITAET IM GESUNDHEITSWESEN, 2019, 144 : 78 - 83
  • [35] Applying Critical Consciousness and Evidence-Based Practice Decision-Making: A Framework for Clinical Social Work Practice
    O'Neill, Margaret
    JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION, 2015, 51 (04) : 624 - 637
  • [36] Redesigning an Autism Evidence-Based Practice Adoption and Decision-Making Implementation Toolkit for Middle and High Schools
    Locke, Jill J.
    Michael, Olivia G.
    Holt, Tana
    Drahota, Amy
    Dickson, Kelsey S.
    SCHOOL MENTAL HEALTH, 2024, 16 (03) : 727 - 745
  • [37] Evidence syntheses to support decision-making related to the Covid-19 pandemic
    de Andrade, Keitty Regina Cordeiro
    Carvalho, Viviane Karoline da Silva
    Silva, Roberta Borges
    Luquine Junior, Cezar D.
    Farinasso, Cecilia Menezes
    Oliveira, Cintia de Freitas
    Mascarenhas, Fabiana
    de Paula, Gabriel Antonio Rezende
    de Toledo, Isabela Porto
    Marinho, Marina Arruda Melo
    Wachira, Virginia Kagure
    Siqueira, Alessandra de Sa Earp
    Araujo, Denizar Vianna
    Sachetti, Camile Giaretta
    Rego, Daniela Fortunato
    REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA, 2024, 58
  • [38] Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and risk of diabetes: an evidence-based review
    Lind, P. Monica
    Lind, Lars
    DIABETOLOGIA, 2018, 61 (07) : 1495 - 1502
  • [39] Evidence synthesis activities of a hospital evidence-based practice center and impact on hospital decision making
    Jayakumar, Kishore L.
    Lavenberg, Julia A.
    Mitchell, Matthew D.
    Doshi, Jalpa A.
    Leas, Brian
    Goldmann, David R.
    Williams, Kendal
    Brennan, Patrick J.
    Umscheid, Craig A.
    JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE, 2016, 11 (03) : 185 - 192