Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-9k7mv Total loading time: 0.314 Render date: 2022-01-18T23:57:35.793Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

6 - Making evidence-informed decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2013

Anne Andermann
McGill University, Montréal
Get access


Making evidence-informed decisions with the aim of improving health can be facilitated by using a systematic approach. While there is no single way of summarising or ordering the various elements that should be involved in making such decisions, the algorithm shown in Fig. 6.1 lays out many of the key issues that should be considered. 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 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 minimising harms? The remainder of this chapter will go through each of the steps in the algorithm in greater detail.

Define the priority health problem

Whether seeking to improve the health of individuals, populations or our global society, there are generally multiple health problems that could be addressed. Often many of these health problems are inter-related and intertwined. Yet, it is nonetheless helpful to try and identify the priority health problem (or problems) that, if improved, will have the greatest impact on health overall.

Evidence for Health
From Patient Choice to Global Policy
, pp. 146 - 174
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Green, L, Kreuter, M. Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach, 4th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.Google Scholar
Omran, A. The epidemiologic transition: a theory of the epidemiology of population change. Milbank Q 2005; 83(4): 731–57. Reprinted from Milbank Mem Fund Q 1971; 49(4): 509–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD publishing, 2011. Available at: .Google Scholar
World Health Organization. The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 update. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008. Available at: .Google Scholar
G8 Muskoka Declaration: Recovery and New Beginnings. Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2012. Available at: .
Marmot, M on behalf of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Achieving health equity: from root causes to fair outcomes. The Lancet 2007; 370(9593): 1153–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reading, C, Wien, F. Health Inequalities and Social Determinants of Aboriginal People’s Health. Prince George, BC: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health, 2009. Available at:.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. Global Health Risks: Mortality and Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risks. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2009. Available at: .Google Scholar
Evans, R, Barer, M, Marmor, T (eds.). Why Are Some People Healthy and Others Not? The Determinants of Health of Populations. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1994.
Dahlgren, G, Whitehead, M. Policies and Strategies to Promote Social Equity in Health. Stockholm: Institute for Futures Studies, 1991.Google Scholar
National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. Education as a Social Determinant of First Nations, Inuit and Metis Health. Prince George, BC: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health, 2009. Available at: .Google Scholar
National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. Employment as a Social Determinant of First Nations, Inuit and Metis Health. Prince George, BC: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health, 2009. Available at: .Google Scholar
Maslow, A. Motivation and Personality, 3rd edn. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1987.Google Scholar
Bovet, P, Ross, A, Gervasoni, J et al. Distribution of blood pressure, body mass index and smoking habits in the urban population of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and associations with socioeconomic status. Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31(1): 240–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH). Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2008. Available at: .Google Scholar
Reading, J. Keynote address. International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE) World Conference, Vancouver, 2007.
Macaulay, A. Improving aboriginal health: how can health care professionals contribute?Can Fam Physician 2009; 55: 334–6. Available at: .Google ScholarPubMed
Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH). Social Determinants and Indigenous Health: The International Experience and Its Policy Implications. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007. Available at: .Google Scholar
Reading, J. The quest to improve aboriginal health. CMAJ 2006; 174(9):1233. Available at: .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Final Report, Vol. 1. Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1996.Google Scholar
Vineis, P, Elliott, P. Why is epidemiology necessary to policy-making?J Epidemiol Community Health 2009; 63(3): 186–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackenbach, J. Politics is nothing but medicine at a larger scale: reflections on public health’s biggest idea. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009; 63(3): 181–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angell, M. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It. New York: Random House, 2004.Google Scholar
Goozner, M. The $800 Million Pill: The Truth Behind the cost of New Drugs. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Lerman, C, Trock, B, Rimer, B et al. Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol 1991; 10(4): 259–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beemsterboer, P, Warmerdam, P, Boer, R et al. Radiation risk of mammography related to benefit in screening programmes: a favourable balance?J Med Screen 1998; 5(2):81–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, M. Breast screening: time for a rethink?BMJ 1989; 299: 1153–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henry, C. The advantages of using suppositories. Nurs Times 1999; 95(17): 50–1.Google ScholarPubMed
Colbert, S, O’Hanlon, D, McAnena, O, Flynn, N. The attitudes of patients and health care personnel to rectal drug administration following day case surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1998; 15(4): 422–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Euler-Chelpin, M, Brasso, K, Lynge, E. Determinants of participation in colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood testing. J Public Health 2010; 32(3): 395–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, R, Wilson, S, Holder, R, McManus, R. Different faecal sampling methods alter the acceptability of faecal occult blood testing: a cross sectional community survey. Eur J Cancer 2007; 43(9): 1437–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fluoride Recommendations Work Group. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the united states. MMWR 2001; 50(RR14): 1–42.Google Scholar
Slade, G, Spencer, A, Davies, M, Stewart, J. Influence of exposure to fluoridated water on socioeconomic inequalities in children’s caries experience. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1996; 24(2): 89–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, D, Carton, R. Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights. Int J Occup Environ Health 2003; 9(1): 24–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connett, P on behalf of the Flouride Action Network. 50 Reasons to Oppose Flouridation. Flouride Action Network, 2011. Available at: .
Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water. Fluoride in Drinking Water. Ottawa: Health Canada, 2009. Available at: .Google Scholar
Attwood, D, Blinkhorn, A. Dental health in schoolchildren 5 years after water fluoridation ceased in south-west Scotland. Int Dent J 1991; 41(1): 43–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Rose, G. Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol 1985; 14: 32–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jamison, D, Breman, J, Measham, A et al. Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. 2nd edn. Washington DC and Oxford: The World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2006. Available at: .Google ScholarPubMed
Drummond, M, Sculpher, M, Torrance, G, O’Brien, B, Stoddart, G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Petticrew, M, Whitehead, M, Macintyre, S, Graham, H, Egan, M. Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: the reality according to policymakers. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004; 58(10): 811–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomson, H, Thomas, S, Sellstrom, E, Petticrew, M. The health impacts of housing improvement: a systematic review of intervention studies from 1887 to 2007. Am J Public Health 2009; 99 (Suppl 3): S681–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taske, N, Taylor, L, Mulvihill, C et al. Housing and Public Health: A Review of Reviews of Interventions for Improving Health. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2005. Available at: .Google Scholar
Schoub, B, Cameron, N. Problems encountered in the delivery and storage of OPV in an African country. Dev Biol Stand 1996; 87: 27–32.Google Scholar
Melzack, R. The tragedy of needless pain. Sci Am 1990; 262(2): 27–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warlow, C. Ann McPherson: Obituary. BMJ 2011; 342: d3424.Google Scholar
McPherson, K. My Wife Championed the Right to Choose When to Die, the Distress Of Her Final Days Proves Her Case. The Daily Mail June 14, 2011. Available at: .Google Scholar
Nicol, N, Wylie, H. Between the Dying and the Dead. Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s Life and the Battle to Legalize Euthanasia. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Julian, J, Prokopetz, B, Lehmann, L. Redefining physicians’ role in assisted dying. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 97–9.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genetic Screening: Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1993. Available at: .Google Scholar
Kass, N. An ethics framework for public health. Am J Public Health 2001; 91(11): 1776–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Government of Quebec. Plan Nord: Building Northern Quebec Together. Quebec: Government of Quebec, 2012. Available at: .Google Scholar
Financial Post. Goldcorp Gets Approval for Quebec Mine. Financial Post November 14, 2011. Available at: .Google Scholar
Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH). Investing in Health: A Summary of the Findings of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002. Available at: .Google Scholar
Timmins, N. OECD Calls Time on Trickle Down Theory. The Globe and Mail December 5, 2011. Available at: .Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012. Available at: .Google Scholar
Carson, R. Silent Spring: 40th Anniversary Edition. New York, NY: First Mariner Books, 2002.Google Scholar
Kickbush, I, McCann, W, Sherbon, T. Adelaide revisited: from healthy public policy to Health in All Policies. Health Promot Int 2008; 23(1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. HIA and policy-making. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2012. Available at: .Google Scholar
Health Canada. Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment: The Basics. Ottawa: Health Canada, 1999. Available at: .Google Scholar
Kriebel, D, Tickner, J. Reenergizing public health through precaution. Am J Public Health 2001; 91(9): 1351–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC clinical practice guidelines for vaginal birth after previous caesarean birth. Number 155 (Replaces guideline Number 147). Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 89(3): 319–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmett, C, Shaw, A, Montgomery, A, Murphy, D on behalf of the DiAMOND study group. Women’s experience of decision making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section: the role of health professionals and information about health risks. BJOG 2006; 113(12): 1438–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guise, J, Eden, K, Emeis, C et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess 2010; 191: 1–397.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, K, Kurinczuk, J, Alfirevic, Z et al. Uterine rupture by intended mode of delivery in the UK: a national case-control study. PLoS Med 2012; 9(3): e1001184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erez, O, Novack, L, Kleitman-Meir, V et al. Remote prognosis after primary cesarean delivery: the association of VBACs and recurrent cesarean deliveries with maternal morbidity. Int J Womens Health 2012; 4: 93–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hibbard, J, Ismail, M, Wang, Y et al. Failed vaginal birth after a cesarean section: how risky is it?Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184(7): 1365–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. An Introduction to Decision Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shorten, A, Shorten, B, Keogh, J, West, S, Morris, J. Making choices for childbirth: a randomized controlled trial of a decision-aid for informed birth after cesarean. Birth 2005; 32(4): 252–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moffat, M, Bell, J, Porter, M et al. Decision making about mode of delivery among pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean section: a qualitative study. BJOG 2007; 114(1): 86–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stacey, D, Bennett, C, Barry, M et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (10): CD001431.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. Sausage and the Art of Public Policy-Making. The Examiner November 27, 2010. Available at: .Google ScholarPubMed

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats