ArticleImplementation science : IS2013
The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing the process and outcome of the development of practice guidelines and recommendations: PANELVIEW instrument development.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2020Pooled it
- Exploring the transparency mechanism and evaluating the effect of public reporting on prescription: a protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC public health · 2015Trial
- Barriers and Facilitators to Interest-Holder Engagement in Health Guideline Development: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- "Going into the black box": a policy analysis of how the World Health Organization uses evidence to inform guideline recommendations.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Investigating how the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework is used in Clinical Guidelines: a scoping review protocol.HRB open research · 2023Article
- PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Article
- PROTOCOL: Conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in health and healthcare guideline development: a systematic review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Article
- "It's Not Smooth Sailing": Bridging the Gap Between Methods and Content Expertise in Public Health Guideline Development.International journal of health policy and management · 2020Article
- The role of real-world data in the development of treatment guidelines: a case study on guideline developers' opinions about using observational data on antibiotic prescribing in primary care.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Article
- Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 2 - Using qualitative evidence synthesis findings to inform evidence-to-decision frameworks and recommendations.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Evidence-based medicine meets democracy: the role of evidence-based public health guidelines in local government.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2017Article
- Reaching beyond the review of research evidence: a qualitative study of decision making during the development of clinical practice guidelines for disease prevention in healthcare.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Expanding the evidence base for global recommendations on health systems: strengths and challenges of the OptimizeMNH guidance process.Implementation science : IS · 2016Article
- Developmental evaluation as a strategy to enhance the uptake and use of deprescribing guidelines: protocol for a multiple case study.Implementation science : IS · 2015Article
- Decision-making and evidence use during the process of prenatal record review in Canada: a multiphase qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere has been significant investment in developing guidelines to improve clinical and public health practice. Though much is known about the processes of evidence synthesis and evidence-based guidelines implementation, we know little about how evidence presented to advisory groups is interpreted and used to form practice recommendations or what happens where evidence is lacking. This study investigates how members of advisory groups of NICE (National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence) conceptualize evidence and experience the process.
methodsMembers of three advisory groups for acute physical, mental and public health were interviewed at the beginning and end of the life of the group. Seventeen were interviewed at both time points; five were interviewed just once at time one; and 17 were interviewed only once after guidance completion. Using thematic and content analysis, interview transcripts were analysed to identify the main themes.
resultsThree themes were identified:1. What is the task? Different members conceptualized the task differently; some emphasized the importance of evidence at the top of the quality hierarchy while others emphasized the importance of personal experience.2. Who gets heard? Managing the diversity of opinion and vested interests was a challenge for the groups; service users were valued and as was the importance of fostering good working relationships between group members.3. What is the process? Group members valued debate and recognized the need to marshal discussion; most members were satisfied with the process and output.
conclusionsEvidence doesn't form recommendations on its own, but requires human judgement. Diversity of opinion within advisory groups was seen as key to making well-informed judgments relevant to forming recommendations. However, that diversity can bring tensions in the evaluation of evidence and its translation into practice recommendations.
Indexed as
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.