Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26800684›Full record

ReviewImplementation science : IS2016

Health systems guidance appraisal--a critical interpretive synthesis.

Denis E Ako-Arrey, Melissa C Brouwers, John N Lavis, Mita K Giacomini, AGREE-HS Team

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Implementation science : IS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Denis E Ako-ArreyMcMaster University, Juravinski Hospital Site, G Wing, 2nd Floor, Room 207, 711 Concession Street, Hamilton, ON, L8V 1C3, Canada. akoarrde@mcmaster.ca.
Melissa C BrouwersMcMaster University, Juravinski Hospital Site, G Wing, 2nd Floor, Room 207, 711 Concession Street, Hamilton, ON, L8V 1C3, Canada. mbrouwer@mcmaster.ca.
John N LavisMcMaster University, MML-417, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L6, Canada. lavisj@mcmaster.ca.
Mita K GiacominiMcMaster University, CRL-218, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. giacomin@mcmaster.ca.
AGREE-HS Team

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth systems guidance (HSG) are systematically developed statements that assist with decisions about options for addressing health systems challenges, including related changes in health systems arrangements. However, the development, appraisal, and reporting of HSG poses unique conceptual and methodological challenges related to the varied types of evidence that are relevant, the complexity of health systems, and the pre-eminence of contextual factors. To address this gap, we are conducting a program of research that aims to create a tool to support the appraisal of HSG and further enhance HSG development and reporting. The focus of this paper was to conduct a knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to determine quality criteria (concepts) relevant for this process.

methodsWe applied a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach to knowledge synthesis that enabled an iterative, flexible, and dynamic analysis of diverse bodies of literature in order to generate a candidate list of concepts that will constitute the foundational components of the HSG tool. Using our review questions as compasses, we were able to guide the search strategy to look for papers based on their potential relevance to HSG appraisal, development, and reporting. The search strategy included various electronic databases and sources, subject-specific journals, conference abstracts, research reports, book chapters, unpublished data, dissertations, and policy documents. Screening the papers and data extraction was completed independently and in duplicate, and a narrative approach to data synthesis was executed.

resultsWe identified 43 papers that met eligibility criteria. No existing review was found on this topic, and no HSG appraisal tool was identified. Over one third of the authors implicitly or explicitly identified the need for a high-quality tool aimed to systematically evaluate HSG and contribute to its development/reporting. We identified 30 concepts that may be relevant to the appraisal of HSG and were able to cluster them into three meaningful domains: process principles, content, and context principles.

conclusionsOur study showed the role that the quality criteria play in the development, appraisal, and reporting of HSG and demonstrated the link and resonance within and between the various concepts in the three domains.

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicDelivery of Health CareHumansQualitative ResearchQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID26800684
PMCPMC4724139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.