ArticleImplementation science : IS2007
Turning evidence into recommendations: protocol of a study guideline development groups.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Solutions of clinical guideline implementation in Iran: A qualitative study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- A Framework for a New Paradigm of Opioid Drug Tapering Using Adjunct Drugs.Substance abuse and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Facilitators and barriers for emergency department clinicians using a rapid chest pain assessment protocol: qualitative interview research.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Implementing cognitive remediation and social cognitive interaction training into standard psychosis care.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Communication of scientific uncertainty: international case studies on the development of folate and vitamin D Dietary Reference Values.Public health nutrition · 2015Article
- Decision-making and evidence use during the process of prenatal record review in Canada: a multiphase qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2015Article
- The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside.Implementation science : IS · 2013Article
- Using psychological theory to inform methods to optimize the implementation of a hand hygiene intervention.Implementation science : IS · 2012Article
- Inter-professional clinical practice guideline for vocational evaluation following traumatic brain injury: a systematic and evidence-based approach.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2012Article
- A method for studying decision-making by guideline development groups.Implementation science : IS · 2009Article
- A comparative analysis of four clinical guidelines for hypertension management.Journal of human hypertension · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth care practice based on research evidence requires that evidence is synthesised, and that recommendations based on this evidence are implemented. It also requires an intermediate step: translating synthesised evidence into practice recommendations. There is considerable literature on evidence synthesis and implementation, but little on how guideline development groups (GDGs) produce recommendations. This is a complex process, with many influences on communication and decision-making, e.g., the quality of evidence, methods of presentation, practical/resource constraints, individual values, professional and scientific interests, social and psychological processes. To make this process more transparent and potentially effective, we need to understand these influences. Psychological theories of decision-making and social influence provide a framework for this understanding.
objectivesThis study aims to investigate the processes by which GDGs formulate recommendations, drawing on psychological theories of decision-making and social influence. The findings will potentially inform the further evolution of GDG methods, such as choice of members and procedures for presenting evidence, conducting discussion and formulating recommendations.
methodsLongitudinal observation of the meetings of three National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) GDGs, one from each of acute, mental health and public health, will be tape recorded and transcribed. Interviews with a sample of GDG members at the beginning, middle, and end of the GDG's work will be recorded and transcribed. Site documents including relevant e-mail interchanges, GDG meeting minutes, and stakeholders' responses to the drafts of the recommendations will be collected. Data will be selected for analysis if they refer to either evidence or recommendations; the focus is on "hot spots", e.g., dilemmas, conflicts, and uncertainty. Data will be analysed thematically and by content analysis, drawing on psychological theories of decision-making and social influence.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.