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.