Systematic review of the methodological literature for integrating qualitative evidence syntheses into health guideline development.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Author(s): Carmona C;Carmona C; Baxter S; Baxter S; Carroll C; Carroll C
  • Source:
    Research synthesis methods [Res Synth Methods] 2021 Jul; Vol. 12 (4), pp. 491-505. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Feb 25.
  • Publication Type:
    Journal Article; Systematic Review
  • Language:
    English
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Wiley Blackwell Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101543738 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1759-2887 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17592879 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Res Synth Methods Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: : Chichester : Wiley Blackwell
      Original Publication: Malden, MA : John Wiley & Sons, 2010-
    • Subject Terms:
    • Abstract:
      Guidelines produced by local, national and international bodies underpin clinical practice and healthcare services worldwide. For guidelines to be based on the best available evidence, it is critical that syntheses of both qualitative and quantitative evidence are used to inform decision-making. As methods for qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) develop, they are increasingly able to inform health guideline production. However, the process whereby this form of evidence is considered and incorporated tends to be unclear. This systematic review synthesized existing guidance concerning the use of QES in guideline development. Sources published in English that described or prescribed methods for incorporating QES into evidence-based health guidelines were eligible for inclusion. Seventeen relevant papers were identified. The literature indicates that there is a reasonable consensus about many stages of conducting a QES to inform guideline development. Areas needing further exploration include: the way that committees engage with QES; the usefulness of different QES methodologies; and understanding of how expert committees use evidence. Methods for producing QES for guideline committees tend to be similar to quantitative systematic review methods in terms of searching, quality appraisal, systematic management of data, and presentation of results. While this allows transparency and accountability, it could be argued that it is less "true" to the principles of being led by the data, which are fundamental to most qualitative research. Understanding the process of using QES to produce guidelines is critical to determining their validity and applicability, and to ensure that healthcare provision is based on the best available evidence.
      (© 2021 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
    • References:
      World Health Organization. WHO guidelines approved by the Guidelines Review Committee. https://www.who.int/publications/guidelines/atoz/en/. Accessed July 19, 2020.
      National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guidance and advice list. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/published?type=apg,csg,cg,cov,mpg,ph,sg,sc,dg,hst,ipg,mtg,qs,ta. Accessed July 19, 2020.
      Langlois EV, Tunçalp Ö, Norris SL, Askew I, Ghaffar A. Qualitative evidence to improve guidelines and health decision-making. Bull World Health Organ. 2018;96(2):79-79A.
      Glenton C, Lewin S, Lawrie TA, et al. Qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) for guidelines: paper 3 - using qualitative evidence syntheses to develop implementation considerations and inform implementation processes. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):74.
      Glenton C, Lewin S, Norris SL. World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development. 2nd ed. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
      Ring N, Jepson R, Ritchie K. Methods of synthesizing qualitative research studies for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):384-390.
      Lewin S, Glenton C, Lawrie TA, et al. Qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) for guidelines: paper 2 - using qualitative evidence synthesis findings to inform evidence-to-decision frameworks and recommendations. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):75.
      Carroll C. Qualitative evidence synthesis to improve implementation of clinical guidelines. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed). 2017;j80:356.
      Knaapen L, Colvin CJ, Cowl J, van der Weijden T. How to include qualitative research on patient views in guidelines. GIN Public Toolkit. 2015; 28-40.
      Tan TPY, Stokes T, Shaw EJ. Use of qualitative research as evidence in the clinical guideline program of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2009;7:169-172.
      Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2006.
      Kristensen FB, Sigmund H, eds. Health Technology Assessment Handbook. Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment. Copenhagen: National Board of Health; 2007.
      Hansen HP, Draborg E, Kristensen FB. Exploring qualitative research synthesis: the role of patients' perspectives in health policy design and decision making. Patient. 2011;4(3):143-152.
      Schünemann HJ, Brożek J, Guyatt GH, Oxman A, eds. GRADE Handbook for Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of recommendations. The GRADE Working Group; Available from guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook. 2013.
      GRADE CERQual. Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research. https://www.cerqual.org/. Accessed September 14, 2019.
      Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. https://methods.cochrane.org/qi/welcome. Accessed October 14, 2019.
      Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, et al. GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: introduction. BMJ. 2016;353:i2016.
      Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, et al. GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016;353:i2089.
      NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software [computer program]. Version 122018.
      EPPI Reviewer [computer program]. Version 52018.
      Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU). Evaluation and Synthesis of Studies Using Qualitative Methods of Analysis. Stockholm: Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU; 2016.
      National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. Manchester: NICE; 2018.
      Downe S, Finlayson KW, Lawrie TA, et al. Qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) for guidelines: paper 1 - using qualitative evidence synthesis to inform guideline scope and develop qualitative findings statements. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):76.
      Ring N, Ritchie K, Mandava L, Jepson R. A Guide to Synthesising Qualitative Research for Researchers Undertaking Health Technology Assessments and Systematic Reviews. Glasgow: Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS); 2010.
      Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). www.prisma-statement.org. Accessed September 14, 2019.
      Programme CAS. CASP Qualitative Checklist; 2019. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ Published 2018. Accessed 14/09/2019.
      Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 6th ed. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Cochrane; 2019.
      Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in Qualitive Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence; 2003. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140619055846/http:/www.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/a_quality_framework_tcm6-38740.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2019.
      Joanna Briggs Institute. JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research; 2017. https://joannabriggs.org/ebp/critical_appraisal_tools. Accessed September 14, 2019.
      Flemming K, Booth A, Garside R, Tuncalp O, Noyes J. Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4:e000882.
      Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, et al. Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. [Online]. In: Integrate - HTA; 2016.
      Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):1-8.
      France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):1-13.
      The RAMESES Project. https://www.ramesesproject.org/. Accessed September 14, 2019.
      Gould N. Integrating qualitative evidence in practice guideline development: meeting the challenge of evidence-based practice for social work. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice. 2010;9:93-109.
      Lewin S, Glenton C. Are we entering a new era for qualitative research? Using qualitative evidence to support guidance and guideline development by the World Health Organization. Int J Equity Health. 2018;17:126.
      Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):1-11.
      Booth A. Acknowledging a dual heritage for qualitative evidence synthesis: harnessing the qualitative research and systematic review research traditions. Sheffield, England: University of Sheffield; 2013.
      Carroll C, Booth A. Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis: is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed? Res Synth Methods. 2015;6(2):149-154.
      Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series-paper 1: introduction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:35-38.
      Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Moore G, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(suppl 1):e001107.
      Glenton C, Bohren M, Downe S, Paulsen E, Lewin S. EPOC Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Protocol and review template; 2019.
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: health guidelines; qualitative evidence synthesis; systematic review
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20210216 Date Completed: 20211028 Latest Revision: 20220531
    • Publication Date:
      20220601
    • Accession Number:
      10.1002/jrsm.1483
    • Accession Number:
      33591605