EvidenceLink Methodology

EvidenceLink is a resource made for researchers and practitioners working in public health emergency preparedness and response (PHPR). Here, you can find articles about interventions that have been tested, learn what worked and what did not, and consider how to adapt the intervention to work in your own context.

EvidenceLink was developed by the NYC Preparedness and Recovery Institute (PRI), with support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of PRI’s role as the coordinating technical assistance partner, in collaboration with researchers, subject matter experts, public health partners, and the Regional Centers for Public Health Preparedness and Response.

Search Approach

EvidenceLink includes articles from major citation databases (PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Scopus) that meet eligibility criteria for peer-reviewed articles on studies that test or evaluate a strategy, intervention, program or policy in the PHPR field. Search strings were developed across intervention areas in PHPR to identify literature on tested and evaluated interventions, and the resource also built on prior evidence inventory efforts and articles identified through partner networks.  Articles are categorized into intervention areas according to a rubric designed to comprehensively cover the PHPR field.

Articles are categorized into intervention areas using a rubric designed to cover the PHPR field comprehensively. EvidenceLink also uses filters to help users find relevant articles more easily, including filters related to study type, study design, outcomes, intervention target level, rural relevance, target population, disaster type, intervention area, and an Effective Intervention designation. (See Criteria for Effectual Evidence)

Scope & Limitations

EvidenceLink currently includes peer-reviewed articles from major citation databases that meet the resource’s eligibility criteria. It does not yet include all other types of practice-based knowledge, such as gray literature, after-action reports, or other non-peer-reviewed resources, and it will continue to grow over time.

Eligibility Criteria

EvidenceLink includes two complementary types of evidence. The first is effectual evidence, which helps answer whether an intervention works by focusing on efficacy and effectiveness. The second is contextual evidence, which helps explain how an intervention works, under what circumstances, and what factors influence implementation, adaptation, quality improvement, feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity. This approach reflects the project’s broader definition of evidence, which includes both quantitative and qualitative studies and supports learning about both what works and how to improve practice.

Articles are assessed against established eligibility criteria to determine whether they should be included in EvidenceLink. These criteria define the types of publications, study designs, outcomes, intervention characteristics, and contextual relevance that qualify for inclusion. Eligibility criteria were developed with the Evidence Workgroup and with CDC input and may be refined over time to support practical use and consistency in review.  

Core Criteria

  • Published peer-reviewed journal articles
  • English language
  • Publication date from January 1, 2000 to present 
  • Assessment of a single or combined intervention designed to change individual-, community-, organization-, and/or systems-levels outcomes 
  • Assesses at least one of the following:
    • A public health emergency intervention (single or combined) for the mitigation, preparedness, response, and/or recovery phase
    • A single or combined intervention from other disciplines that is appropriately relevant to PHPR and contributes sufficient evidentiary value (e.g., industrial engineering and operations research modeling study of adequate quality)

We excluded the following, determined through an adjudication process of multiple screeners to better assure reliability of exclusion.

  • International studies with limited generalizability to the United States context (e.g. policies, health systems)
  • Studies with insufficient contemporary relevance (e.g., policy intervention which has since been rescinded)

Contextual Evidence

Contextual Evidence describes and/or explains the factors that influence how and when an intervention works and informs intervention adaptation and improvement using a research or evaluation method that provides an acceptable level of evidentiary value.

Contextual Evidence Details

Criteria for contextual evidence includes:

  • Measures at least one of the following:
    • Feasibility, acceptability, or fidelity
    • Effectiveness improvement
    • Program evaluation using logic model, theory of change, or similar heuristic indicators
    • Quality improvement
  • AND uses at least one of the following designs:
    • Study using qualitative one-to-one interviews or focus group discussions
    • Study using cohort or cross-sectional design
    • Qualitative comparative study
    • Case study using an explicit empirical methodology
    • Systematic, scoping, or integrative review with a clear analysis plan that meets PRISMA or equivalent reporting guidelines

Effectiveness Evidence

Effectiveness Evidence describes an intervention’s efficacy or effectiveness and is obtained using a research method that conveys causal inference.

Effectiveness Evidence Details

Criteria for effectiveness evidence includes:

  • Outcome is a measure of efficacy or effectiveness
  • AND uses at least one of the following designs:
    • Study using randomized allocation (e.g., randomized cluster trial, pretest-posttest control group, alternative treatments design with pretest, randomized clinical trial, factorial design)
    • Study using a quasi-experimental design (e.g., interrupted time-series, regression discontinuity)
    • Systematic review or meta-analysis with a clear analysis plan that meets PRISMA or equivalent reporting guidelines

Articles were deemed “Effective” if the intervention or strategy described was evaluated and demonstrated as effective using statistical testing.

Screening & Review Process

EvidenceLink uses a staged screening and review process to assess articles for inclusion. Records first undergo title and abstract screening, followed by text-based review, with additional review for final eligibility and classification where needed. Multiple reviewers, researchers, and subject matter experts contribute throughout this process to improve consistency, guide decisions on complex cases, and help ensure the evidence is relevant to PHPR practice.

For each included article, structured data are abstracted using a data dictionary developed for the resource. These data points help characterize and summarize the literature and support user navigation of the evidence base. Examples include target population, study design, and intervention area.  

Ongoing Development

EvidenceLink is an evolving resource. Project materials note continued screening, article extraction, practitioner-focused improvements, and future efforts to improve functionality and use. The long-term goal is to support public health practitioners in designing, adapting, improving, and evaluating interventions, while helping close the gap between what is known in the literature and what is done in practice.