Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30775019›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2019

Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis.

Andrew Booth, Jane Noyes, Kate Flemming, Graham Moore, Özge Tunçalp, Elham Shakibazadeh

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers, 29 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 29 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

108 citing papers in PubMed, 29 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Barriers and Facilitators to Dental Care Services Utilization Among Children With Disabilities: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Andrew BoothSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4808-3880
Jane NoyesSchool of Social Sciences, Bangor University, Wales, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4238-5984
Kate FlemmingDepartment of Health Sciences, The University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0795-8516
Graham MooreSchool of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Özge TunçalpDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Genève, Switzerland.
Elham ShakibazadehDepartment of Health Education and Promotion, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When making decisions about complex interventions, guideline development groups need to factor in the sociocultural acceptability of an intervention, as well as contextual factors that impact on the feasibility of that intervention. Qualitative evidence synthesis offers one method of exploring these issues. This paper considers the extent to which current methods of question formulation are meeting this challenge. It builds on a rapid review of 38 different frameworks for formulating questions. To be useful, a question framework should recognise context (as setting, environment or context); acknowledge the criticality of different stakeholder perspectives (differentiated from the target population); accommodate elements of time/timing and place; be sensitive to qualitative data (eg, eliciting themes or findings). None of the identified frameworks satisfied all four of these criteria. An innovative question framework, PerSPEcTiF, is proposed and retrospectively applied to a published WHO guideline for a complex intervention. Further testing and evaluation of the PerSPEcTiF framework is required.

Indexed as

qualitative studysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30775019
PMCPMC6350737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.