Table 3.

Description of frameworks derived from reports that have progressed beyond the first stage screening

Reference	Name of framework, if any	Relevant to theory of change?	Useful for responders or evaluators?	Encompasses design to outcome stages?	Progressed to narrative synthesis?
Heyse et al 9	Humanitarian Analysis and Intervention Design (H-AID) framework	Yes	Yes—responder focused	Yes	Yes
Wong et al 25	Framework for the longitudinal phases of disasters	Yes	No—academic focused	Yes—covers all stages of a response	No
Puri et al 29	Stages of emergency framework	No	No—academic focused	No—focused on impact	No
OECD/DAC30	Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) framework for evaluating complex emergencies	Yes—can be used to explore how response outputs are performing	Yes—evaluator focused	Yes—focused on outcomes	Yes
Murphy et al 21	RE-AIM framework	Yes	Yes—evaluator focused	Yes—focused on implementation of activities and potential impact	Yes
Moore et al 23	Framework for process evaluation of complex intervention	Yes—can be used to explore if activities are implemented as intended and relationship to outcome	Yes—evaluator focused	Yes—focused on processes	Yes
Ciglene et al 10	Decision-making framework for vaccination in acute humanitarian emergencies	Yes—can be used in one key epidemic response activity (vaccination)	Yes—responder focused	Yes	Yes
Altay and Labonte11	Integrated complexity-information flow impediment framework	Yes—information generation and flow (surveillance)	Yes—responder/decision-makers focused	Yes—process and outcome of information	Yes
Huicho et al 31	Framework for measuring efforts to increase access to health workers in underserved areas	No	Yes—evaluator focused	Yes—covers from design to impact	No
Oppenheim et al 32	Epidemic Preparedness Index framework	Yes—response activities	No—academic focused	No—preparedness focused	No
Burnham et al; Dobai and Tallada; Fogden et al; IFRC; Lam and Ly; Thormar; Darcy et al 14–18 33–35	IFRC and UNICEF frameworks	Yes	Yes—evaluator focused	Yes—covers all stages of a response	Yes
Nickerson et al 36	Health systems framework	Yes—can be used to explore input and impact of epidemic response	No—academic focused	Yes	No
Fitter et al 37	CDC’s Essential Package of Health Services framework for Haiti	Yes—can be used to explore how research underlays response	Yes—evaluator/academic focused	No—focused primarily in resilience	No
Heitzinger et al 38	Unnamed framework	Yes—evidence-based decision-making	Yes—responder focused	Yes—process	Yes
Jordans et al 39	Care utilisation model	No	No—academic focused	Yes—focused feasibility in design and implementation of package of service	No
Chung and Chung40	CBR framework	No	Yes—evaluator focus	No—focused on impact	No
Checchi et al 41 42	Conceptual framework of public health information domains in crises	Yes—can be used to understand chain of causality that affects epidemics	No—academic focused	No—focused on impact of drivers on mortality	No
Seeger et al 19	Emergency risk communication (ERC) conceptual model	Yes—can be used to explore community outreach	Yes—evaluator focused	Yes—focused on outcomes of ERC and processes	Yes
Khan et al 43	Resilience framework for public health emergency preparedness	No	No—academic focused	No—resilience focused	No
Campbell et al 44	Framework for assessment of the role of the global strategy in supporting the joining of organisations in Myanmar	No	No—academic focused	No	No
Tumilowicz et al 45	Implementation research framework	No	No—academic focused	Yes—process of implementation	No
Kapiriri and Be LaRose46	Kapiriri and Martin’s priority setting evaluation framework	Yes—prioritisation of interventions and of diseases to respond to	Yes—responder/decision-making focused	Yes—process of prioritisation	Yes
Figueroa47	Ideation model and pathways framework	No	No—academic focused	No	No
Desie and Ismail48	Accountability to Affected Population (AAP)	Yes—can be used to explore community outreach intervention	No—academic focused	Yes—used in process	No
Task Force on Quality Control of Disaster Management49	Longitudinal framework	No	No—academic focused	No	No
VM et al 50	Predictive evaluation framework	No	No—academic focused	No	No
de Jong et al 51	de Jong’s public health prioritisation framework	Yes—can be used to explore prioritisation of alternative epidemic control interventions	Yes—responder/academic focused	Yes—focused on programme design	Yes
Abramson et al 52	Resilience activation framework	No	No—academic focused	No—resilience focused	No
Savoia et al 20	Risk Communications Evaluation (RICE) framework	Yes—can be used to explore community outreach intervention	No—academic/evaluator focused	Yes	Yes
Sambala et al 53	Standardised checklist	Yes—can be adapted to explore activities and process in ongoing epidemic	Yes—responder focused	No—preparedness focused	No
Lin et al 54	Unnamed framework	Yes—can be used to explore the structure of the response	Yes—evaluator	Yes—impact	Yes
Van Beurden et al 55	Cynefin framework	No	No—academic focused	No	No
D’Ostie-Racine et al 56	Wholey’s (2004) framework	No	No—academic focused	No	No

CBR, community-based rehabilitation; CDC, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; IFRC, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; RE-AIM, Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance.