Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health-protective actions

2022 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 615

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2022

Study typepolicy

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health-protective actions Chartres N, Sass JB, Gee D, Bălan SA, Birnbaum L, Cogliano VJ, Cooper C, Fedinick KP, Harrison RM, Kolossa- Gehring M, Mandrioli D, Mitchell MA, Norris SL, Portier CJ, Straif K, Vermeire T. Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health-protective actions. Environ Health. 2022 Dec 5;21(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s12940-022-00926-z. Abstract Background: In February 2021, over one hundred scientists and policy experts participated in a web-based Workshop to discuss the ways that divergent evaluations of evidence and scientific uncertainties are used to delay timely protection of human health and the environment from exposures to hazardous agents. The Workshop arose from a previous workshop organized by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 2008 and which also drew on case studies from the EEA reports on 'Late Lessons from Early Warnings' (2001, 2013). These reports documented dozens of hazardous agents including many chemicals, for which risk reduction measures were delayed for decades after scientists and others had issued early and later warnings about the harm likely to be caused by those agents. Results: Workshop participants used recent case studies including Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Extremely Low Frequency - Electrical Magnetic Fields (ELF-EMF fields), glyphosate, and Bisphenol A (BPA) to explore myriad reasons for divergent outcomes of evaluations, which has led to delayed and inadequate protection of the public's health. Strategies to overcome these barriers must, therefore, at a minimum include approaches that 1) Make better use of existing data and information, 2) Ensure timeliness, 3) Increase transparency, consistency and minimize bias in evidence evaluations, and 4) Minimize the influence of financial conflicts of interest. Conclusion: The recommendations should enhance the production of "actionable evidence," that is, reliable evaluations of the scientific evidence to support timely actions to protect health and environments from exposures to hazardous agents. The recommendations are applicable to policy and regulatory settings at the local, state, federal and international levels. Open access paper: ehjournal.biomedcentral.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typepolicy

Effect directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureELF

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

A 2021 workshop discussed how divergent evaluations of evidence and scientific uncertainties can delay timely protection from hazardous exposures. Using case studies including ELF-EMF, participants recommended strategies to improve evidence evaluations: better use of existing data, ensure timeliness, increase transparency/consistency and minimize bias, and minimize influence of financial conflicts of interest, aiming to produce actionable evidence for policy and regulatory decisions.

Outcomes measured

evidence evaluation processes
timeliness and transparency of health-protective actions
bias and financial conflicts of interest in evidence evaluations

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "policy",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "evidence evaluation processes",
    "timeliness and transparency of health-protective actions",
    "bias and financial conflicts of interest in evidence evaluations"
  ],
  "main_findings": "A 2021 workshop discussed how divergent evaluations of evidence and scientific uncertainties can delay timely protection from hazardous exposures. Using case studies including ELF-EMF, participants recommended strategies to improve evidence evaluations: better use of existing data, ensure timeliness, increase transparency/consistency and minimize bias, and minimize influence of financial conflicts of interest, aiming to produce actionable evidence for policy and regulatory decisions.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "evidence evaluation",
    "policy",
    "regulation",
    "workshop",
    "actionable evidence",
    "transparency",
    "timeliness",
    "bias",
    "conflicts of interest",
    "ELF-EMF",
    "European Environment Agency",
    "Late Lessons from Early Warnings"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.28,
      "reason": "Discusses divergent evaluations of evidence and policy/regulatory approaches to hazardous agents; includes ELF-EMF as a case study but does not name specific organizations in the abstract."
    },
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0,
      "reason": null
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1186/s12940-022-00926-z
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library