Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 30;5(1):e002109. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002109

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.