To what extent does evidence support decision making during infectious disease outbreaks? A scoping literature review
Open accessAbstract
Background: Infectious disease outbreaks require decision makers to make rapid decisions under time pressure and situations of scientific uncertainty, and yet the role of evidence usage in these contexts is poorly understood. Aims and objectives: To define and contextualise the role of scientific evidence in the governance of infectious disease outbreaks and to identify recommendations for overcoming common barriers to evidence-informed decision making. Methods: A scoping review and an expert workshop to provide additional input into recommendations on enhancing evidence uptake during infectious disease outbreaks taking place in European settings. Findings: Forty-nine records reporting on multiple decision-making processes during infectious disease outbreaks of the past ten years were included in the study. Decision makers prioritise expert advice, epidemiological data and mathematical modelling data for risk characterisation and management, but tend to be challenged by scientific uncertainties, which allow for conflicting interpretations of evidence and for public criticism and contestation of decision-making processes. There are concrete opportunities for optimising evidence usage to improve public health policy and practice through investment in decision-making competencies, relationship building, and promoting transparent decision-making processes. Discussion and conclusions: It is not necessarily a disregard of evidence that puts a strain on decision making in health cri…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 77 · Cited by 86
- Authors
- Salajan, A., Tsolova, S., Ciotti, M., & Suk, J. E.
- Affiliations
- European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (SE)
- Venue
- Evidence & Policy
- Publisher
- Bristol University Press
- Published
- 2020-08
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 453-475
- ISSN
- 1744-2648 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-2656
- OpenAlex
- W3011702205
- Cited by
- 86
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12
- FWCI
- 13.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Evidence & Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Disaster Response and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- infectious disease outbreaks, evidence-informed decision-making, evidence uptake, scientific uncertainty, public health governance, science-policy interface, risk characterization, mathematical modeling, expert advice, transparency in decision-making, crisis management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review