Table 1. Summary of existing public health frameworks considered.

Framework name	Grades Assigned/What the Framework Rates	Domains for Grading Evidence	Notes on Domains
Tang et al. [12] (Drawn from article's Table 1 for grading of evidence on association, repeatability and causal mechanism)	Grades of 1, strong; 2, weak; 3, insufficient. Expanded categories include 2A, probable; 2B, possible; and 2C, limited.“Grading of evidence of the effectiveness of health promotion interventions.”	Association	“High” association is defined as a RR of greater than 2. Otherwise “low” or “none.”
		Repeatability	Wide or limited
		How it works	How it works is known or not known
GRADE [13] (Summarized from article's Table 1.)	Four grades assigned: high, moderate, low, and very low quality of evidence.“A system for rating quality of evidence/confidence in estimates of treatment effects.”	Randomized trials start with a “high” initial quality grade, observational studies start with a “low” grade.	Grades can be moved down depending on factors such as risk of bias or inconsistency, or up in light of a large measured effect or evidence of a dose-response.
HASTE [14]	Four grades assigned: 1, strong; 2, conditional; 3, insufficient; 4, inappropriate. Grade 2, conditional, has subcategories of probable, possible, and pending.“A novel system of evaluating evidence for interventions targeting decreasing HIV risk specifically among most at risk populations.”	Efficacy	Whether consistent, limited or inconsistent
		Biological plausibility
		Implementation data availability	Whether available or not
USCPSTF [15]	Evidence is characterized as strong, sufficient, or insufficient.“Evaluate and make recommendations on population-based and public health interventions”…a “process to systematically review evidence and translate that evidence into recommendations.”	Execution	Good or fair
		Design suitability	Greatest (RCTs), moderate (no concurrent comparison group), or least
		Number of studies
		Consistent	“Generally consistent in direction and size”
		Effect size	Sufficient or large, defined on a case-by-case basis based on Task Force opinion
		Expert opinion	Whether used or not
NHMRC [16]	Four grades assigned: A, excellent; B, good; C, satisfactory; D, poor. Grade A can be trusted to guide practice; grade D concludes the body of evidence is weak and recommendation must be applied with caution.“A new approach to grading evidence recommendations, which should be relevant to any clinical guideline (not just those dealing with interventions).”	Evidence base	“Evidence hierarchy” places systematic reviews of RCTs with “low risk of bias” highest
		Consistency of evidence
		Clinical impact	Very large, substantial, moderate, slight
		Generalizability	Highest grade awarded if “population/s studied in body of evidence are the same as the target population for the guideline” (emphasis added)
		Applicability
NHS Health Development Agency [17]	Four grades assigned: A, B, C, and D.“This provisional framework provides a practical and transparent method for deriving grades of recommendation for public health interventions, based on a synthesis of all relevant supporting evidence from research.”	Efficacy	High quality meta-analyses and systematic reviews of RCTs with very low risk of bias rated highest level of evidence.
		Evidence of corroboration	Strong evidence of corroboration defined as “Consistent findings in two or more studies of ++ quality carried out within the UK and applicable to the target population, providing evidence on salience and implementation.” ++ is defined as is efficacy above.